The Penn's Grove record., 1913-01-31
Should Sheriff's and County Clerks
Offices Pay Expenses

lectOrs Statement published last week
and the report of County Auditor Girls
com on the receipts and expenditures of
the three county offices shows that the
Sheriff's office has been operated at a
loss or cost to the County in 1912 of ST.
267.73. But this statement should not be
let go without some explanation and
more details, in justice not only to the
county but to the Sheriff as we'll.
To begin with, the Office has been
operated during the year 1912 at a cost of
$223.31 less than it cost to operate it dur.
ing the year 1911, when the expenses Of
the office were So. 1862 81, while last year
the expenses were but So 1853.
The receipts of the Office were not so
large in 1912 IA matter entirely beyond
the control of the Sheriff and the county,
In 1911 the receipts were $2,349.65 in
1912 they were hut $2,27l. q.
Again, the Sheriff's Office has not been
credited with turnkey fees which would
amount to $l45. This wa probably true
in 1911, although on that point l am not
informed. The Office is entitled to this
credit. 1t is considered by some that the
Office of Sheriff should be made to pay
its W way under the salary system, but
there is no argument or reason in such a
claim.
The Sheriff is the high Constable OF
the county and his duties are mainly
those of a Police Chief whose territory
and field is the entire county and the
major part of his expenses is in doing
police work. Does any police pay his
W salary from his receipts? Much less
should a county Sheriff whose expenses
are thrust upon him by law by other
officers of the law, other county officials
without consulting him or without his
consent.
Then again, the only profitable part OF
the Sheriff's Office has been taken away
from it by the Board of F~reeholders. The
part spoken of is the feeding of the prls-
oners. For years that has been the only
part of the Office which showed a profit,
even under the old fee system. The
Freeholders formerly allowed the Sheriff
45 cents per prisoner per day for food and
the county paid the expenses of the Jail.
The difference between the forty-fve
cents and the mou actually expended
for food was profit to the Shorthand
the only profit in the Office of late years.
The Freeholders. to save the county
money, took this out of the hands of the
Sheriff and placed it in the hands of the
Board itself. With the Office OIL a salary
system the profits would 90 to the county
any way it is figured out, but the credit
for that profit properly belongs to the
Sheriff's Office. And it would amount to
something in the course of a year. For
instance, the average cost per prisoner
per day last year was sixteen cents. De-
Quoting .l6 from As shows a profit to
the Sheriff of 30 cents per prisoner per
day. AS there were 1907 days served by
prisoners during the year, the profit on
their meals would have been 81 1888. O3-
and this profit, or more, would have gone
to the Sheriff under the old fee system.
Under the direction of a Sheriff instead
of a Board OF Freeholders, the percentage
of profit would most likely be larger.
The outcome is the same under the fee
system, the county getting the benefit.
But it is not as broad as it is long when
the credit for making that saving is taken
from the Sheriff's ofice-where it former
ly was, and the only paying end OF the
Office was taken from it and placed else
where. The office should have credit on
the county books for this saving.
Those who t~houghtlessly declare that
the Siieriff's Office should pay it's way,
should consider these facts: a county
police force is not expected 20 pay it's own
expenses and show a profit; the profit
able part Of the Office, the feeding OF the
prisoners, has been taken from it at a loss
in profit last year of 81, 1888. O3; the office
is being operated cheaper than hereto.
fore; the Office has not been receiving
credit for fees which belong to it. if the
office had been credited with these items
the apparent deficiency wodld be wiped
out and a profit would be shown.
The County Clerks office, also, shows
a loss when in all justice and fairness it
should not do 90, and through no fault of
the Office, either.
For instance the Office is charged with
$3.50 for indexing. This charge should
not show rs a charge against the Office
it should show as a receipt of the office.
In other words, the county pays $3.50 to
the Clerks office for indexing books.
Then it charges that office for the ex-
pense. This charge is a county charge
and should be charged against the ex-
penses of the county, as it formerly was,
and not against the Office. 1t should
show as a receipt from the Office.
Then, too, in the statement last year,
is ali item of $l49.68 for filing county
bills in the Clerks Office. 1t seems like
rubbing it in for the Clerks Office to do
this work and then be charged for it.
The item should be a credit and not a
charge against the Office. These two
items alone make a difference of $685. S.
This anioun should in all justice be de-
Quoted from the expenses Of maintaining
the Clerks Office. 1t this were done the
County auditors report would show that
there WAS a deficiency in that Office for
the year of but $43. 80, instead of 1878. 60.
Then, too, where does the Clerks Office
get credit for the large amount of work
done for the state? Lots of it, lots of fees
collected and turned into the State and
not the county. All this work requires a
lot of time and added expenses and with
no credits to show for it. 1t really seems
more a wonder that the Office il as uear.