Shoshone journal. [volume] (Shoshone, Idaho) 1884-1931, 1912-03-29
CHAIRMAN SPEAK
MANS STATEMENT
WILLING TO LEAVE DECISION TO
TAxPAYERs-No ExrRAvA-
GENcE PROVED

was over at Shoshone last Friday
and the decision of Judge Bulge had
Just been filed, covering the appea
taken by Frank Millsaps some time
ago AS there has been quite a good
deal said about this case it will prob
ably not be out of place for me to say
what the decision was. There were
three different propositions involved in
. this case The most important was the
claim OF the clerks in the Assessor S
office, these amounting to SS51 IS, and
covering their salaries for three months
including the special work done during
the rush of October, November and
December The next item was S100S5
which was allowed G. T. Massey for
services during three months as Clerk
in the Probate Court. The other item
was S65 % which included the expenses
Of the Commissioners and the Clerk
OF the Board in attending a state con-
vention of County Commissioners This
item was paid for all of us by Mr. An
derson and instead OF each one filing
separate claim the entire claim was
fileo by him.
The Court upheld the Board of Com
nissioners as to all Of lie salaries in
the Assessors office amounting to s951.65
but the Court held that Mr.. Massey's
claim should be rejected as well as the
expenses of the Board in going to Boise
10 the convention.
I was very much pleased with what
the Court saiu in sustaining the pay
ment to the clerks in the Assessor $
office and copy this from the opinion
OF the court:
to bar.
rule for me TO adopt, in view of the
stipulation of facts in this case, to hold
that where it is so apparent to every
thinking person that county such as
Lincoln, which has more than doubled
its population during the last year, and
increased in the value OF its property
to such an extent that it enjoys the
admiration of all of its sister counties
in the state, and also being conscious
of the fact that it would be a physical
inpossibility for an assessor with two
deputies to perform the labor incident
tC the office of County Assessor and
Tax Collector of Lincoln County within
the time prescribed by law, and further,
in view of the fact that the stipulation
OF facts alleges as a fact that the serv-
ices were actually necessary to properly
conduct the business of the office of
saio Assessor, and that the services
were actually performed by the various
claimants, and that the amounts claimed
by them were not excessive, but reason |
able, that the Board of County Commits
sioners, at the time that the claims |
were allowed, found as a fact these |
services were absolutely necessary, now |
for me 20 apply a technical rule of con- !
and thus deprive these claim
ants of their just compensation, of |
that they have honestly earned |
for services that were absolutely neces- |
sary in order that that all of the prop |
erty in Lincoln County should bear its |
just proportion of taxation, would re-
suit in irreparable wrong.
We We're not especially surprised at
the rejection of Mr. .dassey's claim, but
/ do feel that the County Commission
ers are not at fault The Board of
which preceded us fixed
the salary of the County Treasurer at
s75. 90 per month. This might be salts
factory to a Treasurer. living in Sho
shone, and who is engaged in some
other business. There is, however, no
reason why the County Treasurer should
always be selected from Shoshone. $500
per month is about the average salary
for a school teacher, d clerk in a store,
Or stenographer. 1t could not be call
ed large salary for the Treasurer of
a county handling about $500. 90 per
year There wouldn't be much left
after paying for boaru and room. The
Treasurer, W. NJ. Massey, gave this
entire $500 per month to his deputy,
s. T. Massey, and the county has never
paid a cent more either to the Treas
lrer or TO the deputy for services as
County Treasurer. We wanted to give
he deputy treasurer some extra work
with additional pay and we asked the
County Attorney if this could be done.
Mr.. Boutwell, advised us that we could
not employ Mr.. Massey either in the
Auditors oIIice or the Assessors office,
but that there would be no legal OBJ
ectiens to letting him work in the 4
,ffice of the Probate Judge. Judge
Fuller needed help on account of new
iuties in connection with the Inherit
lnce tax, but not enough to justify the
ulI time Of a clerk. So acting under
ne advice of the County Attorney, we
We let ar Massey work in the Judges
lffice and allowed him $500 per day
or the actual time employed. During
hree months this amounted to S100.S5.
When the appeal was taken our attor-
.eys advised us that while it was :
doubtless a good business proposition !
o use Mr.. Massey's spare time instead
II the full time of an extra clerk, 1t !
vas proba bly, a technical violation OF I
aw. so we were not surprised when Z
he Court turned down this claim 1t Z
giIl make us a little more careful about ,
the advice of our County At ,
orney. c
I was a little disappointed to have '
he Court reject the claim for our ex-
enses going to the state convention {
T County Commissioners. but the OBJ
ection seems to be that the claim was
led by the Clerk instead Of each OF r