Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1910-05-05

against public officers holding or draw
ing pay for two Incompatible offices or
positions.
By a course of reasoning at consider
able length which have carefully
studied but am unable to com orehend,
he arrives ut the following remarkable
conclusion:
Il believe that there j. nothing in
compatible between the two pcsi' ions
so as to prevent HIM from drawing pay
as state engineer and as superin endeDt
of construction of the capitol building -
Even granting that the state auditor
was within the law in issuing Warrants
for this dual, salary-which | do not
concede-my inquiry WAS as to the
merits of the case from the higher
position. Iou attempt To justify your
course by referring to the work done by
the state engineer while he was acting
as superintendent of capitol constrac-
tion when you say.
This work requiring as it does ex-
pert knowledge of construction work.
could not have been done by the di :
nary superintendent OF construction
Under his recommendation, The capitol
commission succeeded in having tte
most up to date ventilating system in
stalled; made the change from imita-
tion marble to full marble fnishingS for
the wainscoting corridors, and grand
stairway; installed the vacuum steam
circulating system OF heating, q
thorough up-to,date telephone system,
and an electric clock system, making
the building one Of the most modern in
equipment Of any building in the Unit ed
States.'
Had any superintendent done less he
would not have done his duty and
would have merited dismissal Be-
cause one man does what any one of a
hundred other men of South Dakota
could and would do at the same or lower
compensation, see no reason why the
laws of South Dakota should be annulled
and course contrary to good business
and moral principles be pursued.
1 believe that the State OF South Da
kota was entitled to all of tho services
OF the state engineer under his appoint
ment to that position, and that he was
entitled to 81 900 salary and legitimate
expenses and no, more, no matter 10
what work engaged.
believe that it was not proper to
employ this same Office as superintend-
ent of capitol construction or in any
other capacity at seven dollars or even
seven cents day, and on this stand.
Since you 60 much further into the
merits of the case than the scope of my
inquiry contemplated, am glad of
the opportunity to call your attention
to few-but not all,--of the facts in
reference to the question at issue:
The state engineer who was on a
salary of $4,000 per annum and expenses
was appointed superintendent of capitol.
construction in July, 1907, at additional
pay OF 81 90 per day. The same month
an assistant state engineer was appoinu-
ed at salary of sl.500 per annum and
expenses. During the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1909, the state engineer S Office
cost South Dakota $S,573.S9. During
the first half of the present fiscal year
the state engineer drew from the state
treasury el,036.15 as superintendent of
capitol construction. Had he charged
for every working day it would have
been possible to draw $l,O7S.00. He
accordingly failed to draw pay for less
than six days. This oversight was, how
ever compensated for by the fact that
the salary of 82,OOO.OO per annum con-
tinued its unwavering course. submit
that this less than six days in six
months, ,-one day month-given to the
official duties of state engineer, does not
appeal to me as compliance with his
oath of office.
You dwell at great length Oh the
qualifications of the state engineer as a
superintendent of construction, which
| statement many dispute. will not en-
ter into this phase of the question al
this time, further than to say that il
such an extraordinary mechanic il
seems rather strange that he was will
ling to work for $4,000, per year and
expenses up to the time he was placee
on this modern system of double com
pensation; also that the capitol commits
sion made q trip to Helena, Montana. a
no small cost to the state to determin,
the advisability of a "change from imi
tstion marble to full marble finishings,
ETC., etc.
| The plain facts are these-Mr. Il. S
Lewis of Madison was superintendent 0
construction of the east wing Of th
Capitol under the first capitol commits
sion up to the date work was stopped
The capitol commission investigate,
his standing as man, an architect,
mechanic, superintendent and con
tractor prior to engaging him for thi
work and found his record good. ri
had done very satisfactory work for th