Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-03-04
Attorney Generals Office.

office, your committee finds that one
+. G. Hebron was appointed Assistant
Attorney General under section 9372
of the Revised Codes of 1905, which
allows the attorney general to appoint
as many assistant attorney generals as
he shall see fit. Mr.. Hebron draws no
salary. His expenses are paid by the
state. u
Your committee finds that Miss
Fanske, II Of the stenographers in
the Attorney Generals office, mas done
work for Mr.. Miller in his private Of
flee. Just how much work she has
done for Mr.. Miller in that capacity
your committee cannot say. Miss
Fauskc did work in Mr.. Miller's pri-
vatc Office both for the state and for
Mr.. Miller as a private individual. The
evidence does not show the amount of
work performed for Mr.. Miller as a
private individual to have been any
considerable amount, but it does show
that it was more than to take an oc-
casionl letter, such as any state ofic-
ial might dictate to his stenographer.
Your committee severely condemns
the practice of such use of the states
employees in any private office as such
practice might lead to gross abuses.
Your committee finds further that
the attorney general and each of his
assistants are engaged in private prac-
tice, that two are in the firm of Miller
and Zuger and that Mr.. Young is a
member OF the firm of Newton, Dull
am and Young. The ATTORNEY General
and his assistants all state that under
the laws Of the State of North Dakota
they are allowed to engage in private
practice. Your committee has consult
ed other eminent attorneys who hold
the same view and others who hold
a contrary view. None, however, hold
the view that engaging in such pri-
vate practice is contrary to any stat
ute, and your committee shall, not at
tempt to determine the question as
to whether, it is, contrary. to law. as q
matter OF public policy. Several cases
were brought to your committees at.
tcntiOn which have been handled by
Mr.. Miller and his assistants. Few
of these cases ever came into court.
for trial, most of them being settled.
The only cases that attracted the at.
tention of your committee were those
known as the Stark county cases. One
of these was the case of Stark county
against various bonding companies to
recover on bonds of county officials.
This case was handled by the firm of
Miller and Costello. The county at
torney of Stark county had counseled
with the Attorney Generals Office with
regard to this matter and had been adj
vised by the Attorney General. At
this point MIR. Miller claims that his
duty as Attorney General ended. The
County Commissioners engaged Miller
and Costello to handle the cases
against the bonding companies. The.
bonding companies settled the cases
entirely to the satisfaction of Stark
equity. Later on it was discovered
that defaults had occurred in another
county office, and the bonding compan-
les, which had settled their cases.
sued the banding companies whose
bond covered the last named office and
a certain bank in the City Of Dickin.
son to compel them to pay a pro rata
share of the original amount recover
ed. Miller and Zuger took the case
of the plaintiff bonding company in
the last mentioned case and the coun-"
ty OF Stark interviewed. sc it appears
that Mr.. Miller is now one of the at
torneys against Stark County in cases
prOuyinr ont nf pncno II, 1y5ioh Nv MI
Ter was originally n Of the attorneys
for Stark county. So far as your com.
can find there is no evidence
of double dealing in the matter
Whether Mr.. Miller is right or wrong
appears to your committee to hinge
entirely upon the question as to
whether the Attorney General a en-
gage in private practice. From a
point of view your commit
tee believes it would be much better
for the state if none of its officers
we're engaged in any private business,
as the interests of the individual may
interfere with the interests Of the
state. From a practical point of view
he advisaDility is not so clear. Your
committee believes that neither the
oest business men or the best lawyers
the state would abandon their pri-
vate business or private practice in
otto and take an official position. FL
1ancially they could not affard it. The
owe of political honors might induce
hem to- accept such a position in case
hey were sufficiently we'll off to dis
the thot of gain. Few men are
IN such a position. SO it appears to
your committee unwise to recommend
that every state officer shall absolutely
sever all connections with his private
business, or practice. However, your
believes that no state offic-
er should be actively engaged in any
business or profession. Such
work as he performs should
be only in the way of advising and di.
and should never in any way!