The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1913-09-24

rem the time these claims were plac-
d in my hands. up to the present, l
have earnestly cndeayored to satisfy
myself just what my duties were in
he matter, regardless OF the balance
Of public sentiment on either side.
| now think the public is entitled
to brief statement from me. Il
shall not attempt to discuss the mer-
its or dement's OF these claims, but
simply give what my position is and
has been relative to their payment,
as state officer, and one that is
charged with the duty to pay only
such claims as are warranted by law.
I received these claims at the clos
ing hours OF thee ffice, on Satur>
lay, the 9th day Of August, 1918.
IN the following Monday morning,
{ looked them over, and was undc-
3idcd as to what action to take, az
the amounts allowed were so much
anger than any similar claims pre-
,ented to me for payment during my
serm of office. | had in mind and
was familiar with Sec. 1872 of the
Code of 1906. and that part of 1t
which is applicable to this case,
which reads as follows:
"A person residing out of the
state, who attends court theerin
as witness, shall be allowed by said
court proper compensation for at
tendance and travel to and from the
place of his abode, the amount u
the same to be fixed by said court.
Difference of Opinion.
Reading this section Of the law
alone, it would seem that the audi
tor would have nothing to do but to
pay the amount fixed by the judge
in this case. Any private opinion he
might have MS to the justice or III
Justice of it would make no differ
ence. 1t would seem as though the
legislature had left it to the judg-
mcnt of the court the amount OF
what he considered a proper COM
pehsation.
l also had in mind Sec. 545 of the
Code, which reads in part as follows:
every person claiming to receive
money from the treasury Of the state
shall apply to the auditor for war
rant for same, and the auditor shall
thereupon examine the claim, with
the vouchers, certificates and evil
dence, if any, offered in support
thereof, and for so much thereof as
nc may find to be justly due by the
state if payment thereof be author
lied by law, and there be>any appro-
priation not exhausted or expired,
out Of which it is properly payable,
he shall issue his warrant, etc"
Reading this section alone, il
would seem that 1t was UP to the au-
ditor to decide what constituted a
reasonable compensation" for tho
services Of a nonresident witness,
regardless of the amount at which
the court may have fixed 1t.
This claim, as / have stated above
being an unusual one, and~with the
= hove quoted sections of law before
me, I/dcsircd in the first place TO-
know IL had any option in the mat
ter of the payment If did have,
then l desired to secure all the in
formation possible. including an
itemized statement from the judge,
in each case making up the totals
in order that might pass on these
claims as intelligently as possible.
| then directed the following let
ter to Hon. A. A. Lilly, attorney gen.
rral:
august II, 1913.
Hon. a. a. Lilly, Attorney Gen.
CITY
Dear Sir:
81 am enclosing you orders of the
court of Webster county, made upon
This office by Judge William s.
O'Brien, for Guy B. Biddinger, who
was a witness in the following cas-
rs: S. U. c. Rhodes, en- A. Smith,
Dave Hill, Rath Duff and H. F. AS
bury.
al would like to have your optn-
ion whether or not these claims arc
proper claims to be paid by the
state"
I received a communication from
Inc attorney general, reviewing the
Ease at some length, and closing
with these words:
~ have come to the conclusion
hat 1t is extraordinary and exorbi-
.ant, and that you, as guardian OF !
The treasury, and us safeguarding
The peoples rights, should not pay
Il.
"tsfgned) A. A. LILLY,
Attorney General"
Still Undecided.
on receipt of the attorney gener-
IL Am ....,, o,,,l,ot an