The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1914-09-08

THERE WE'RE two subjects discussed
at the last meeting of the Board of Free
holders. One was whether Edward
Couples should be paid his bill for per-
sonal services, the other was whether
solicitor Rigg should receive compensa-
ton for extra work he had done. In the
case of Couples it was shown that the
Board had right to declare his office
vacant, but there was not a member
with the backbone to introduce resolu-
ton to that effect and it is doubtful if it
could have been carried if presented.
The bill of Couples was paid and it is
question whether those who voted in
favor of it are not subject to Indictment.
The Herald thinks this is a trivial
matter. We differ on that point. 1t is
no more a trivial matter to have a man
illegally occupying position than for
member to overcharge for his services
and to take money from the treasury
that does not belong to him. The posi-
ton of Couples has been stated in these
columns before this but it will not do
any harm to repeat it. Couples failed to
file statement of his election expenses
as required by law. He was indicted,
pleaded guilty. and was fined. The law
required him to file statement of ex-
penses or to say that he had not expended
any money. Then the law says: 1.-THE
candidate refusing or neglecting to file a
statement, in addition to the punish
ment prescribed by the laws Of this State
for such refusal or neglect, shall be de-
prived of the Office to which he may
have been elected at the election in
reference to which such such statement
is required to be made" There does
not seem to be any mistake about the
language of this statute. The only
doubt ON the subject is as to who is to
deprive the man of the Office. The
solicitor has shown the Board of Free
holders that it has such right In order
to make this matter more binding there
is section of the law which says that a
candidate who is elected to Office, and
whose election has been annulled and
set aside for any offence mentioned in
this act, shall not, during the period
fixed by law as the term of such Office,
be appointed to fill any vacancy which
may occur in such Office, nor shall he be
appointed to fill any unexpired term in
such Office. All of these points seem to
fit the case of Mr.. Couples. He failed to
file his statement, he was indicted,
pleaded guilty and was fined and yet he
still holds the Office to which he was
elected and draws pay for doing work
which, under the law quoted. he has no
right to be doing. The only point that
seems to be worthy of note here is where
to draw the line on 'triviality." If the
law prescribes that man shall not steal
and he takes FIVE dollars he is sent to
Jail. III he takes $500 he is sometimes
sent to prison and sometimes his case is
the more trivial of the two and he is not
punished severely. 1t may not be of
much account in the case of Couples as
it has been said that if he withdrew he
could be reappointed, but the law seems
TO decide otherwise. The statute in his
case seems to be one that should be
honored or thrown aside and the latter
action is prevailing. If that portion
which deprives him of bis Office is to be
ignored, the indicting and filming of the
man was a mere farce. But he will
probably keep right on as he has been
going and his bills will be paid. That is
about the way the Board of Freeholders
seem to want to conduct business. They
will not depose Couples and be will not