The Colfax gazette. [volume] (Colfax, Wash.) 1893-1932, 1911-08-18
EXAMINERS GO TO
GREENER PASTURES
STATE Employees ARE Welcome
TO BOOKS But NOT MONEY
SAYS CITY ATTORNEY.

Two examiners under the state
board of accountantcy received a
chilly greeting when they appeared
in this city Monday morning and an
nOunced their intention to check the
city books and each to draw a salary
of $8 day for their work The state
examiners were Arthur Osborne and
Fred d. Chestnut. They were in
formed by City Attorney Sherfey
that they were perfectly welcome to
the city books and could work on
them all they pleased but they need
not expect any pay from the city as
he believed the law under which
they were working was not constitu-
tional.
These examiners had recently
checked the books at Oakesdale and
while in this city presented their ex-
pense vouchers to Auditor McCros-
key expecting to get their pay for
that work. Mr.. McCroskey doubted
his authority to issue the warrants
and called on County Attorney Paul
PattisOn for an opinion of the attor-
ney and the warrants were not forth
| coming. The books of the munich
palities of ROsalia, Maiden and La
mont have also been checked but the
state employees who did the work
will not get their pay until the con-
stitutiOnality of the law has been
passed upon by the supreme court.
| A similar case is being carried to the
supreme court from Thurston coun-
ty and the Whitman county officials
will be guided by that decision.
Attorney PattisOn's opinion on the
matter is as follows:
Mr.. S. NJ. McCROSKEY,
Auditor of Whitman County,
Colfax, Wash.
Dear Sir
In reply to your question submit
ted to this Office as to whether or not
you should draw warrants in pay
ment of services rendered by Fred
! d. Chestnut and Arthur Osborne for
auditing the accounts of the City of
Oakesdale, beg leave to advise as fol-
| lows:
In my opinion the method of pay
ment, provided by the legislature un-
! der chapter thirty of the laws of
! 1911 for work performed in audit
! ing public accounts, is unconstitu-
| tional under the following provisions
of our State Constitution, Article Z,
Sec. l, Art. {, Sec. 8, Art. II, Sec.
/ IL, Art. IL, Sec. Is.
The construction of the foregoing
sections of our constitution makes it
clear that the legislature has no pow
er to impose taxes upon Counties,
Cities and Towns for any purpose
other than a general state purpose
and in order TO do so they must make
a general state levy and provide for
it's distribution by appropriations
duly made by the legislature. This
law attempts to divert money raised
by the municipality for a specific
municipal purpose to payment OF
employees of the State of Washing
ton.
Further it is clearly the intention
and purpose of the constitution and
statute that county funds shall only
be expended for county purposes and
upon proper vouchers audited by the
Board of County Commissioners
This law attempts to take County
money out of our general fund fo1
the purpose of paying for work per
formed for a city and then provides
that the county can get its money
back, if such money happens to be
paid in to the credit of that particu'
lar city, to reimburse the county.
l do not question the police power
of the legislature to provide for
State Board of Accountantcy, but
do believe, under the clear mandates
of our constitution, that the method
of payment of this board must be
provided by the legislature by gen
eral appropriation for that purpose
and can not be done in the way con
templated by the act in question.
| will therefore advise that unit
such time as our State Supreme
Court has passed upon the constitu
tionality of this act you should re
fuse to issue any warrants in pay
ment of services performed in audit
ing accounts under said statute.
Very truly yours,
PAUL PATTISON,
Prosecuting Attorney.