The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1917-12-03
DISCUSSION Of
ALL[CF D PLEDGE
HELP POLITICS
Justice Robinson Objects to Re
surrection of Year-0ld
l.eague Promises
NONPARTISAN EDITORIAL
ON EXPENSE FUND GOES
State Auditor Kositzky Succeeds
in Introducing Literature in
His Return

JuStlcc James f.. ltODl0SOu, WHO
received almost as many votes las,
fall as League candidate for the su-
preme court as Frazier did for gov
ernor, charged politics Saturday after
noon when Theodore kOffel, attorney
for State Auditor Karl kositzky, also
elected on the Townley ticket, at
tempted to discuss an article from thl
June Is, 1916, issue of the Nonparti-
san Leader, of which Townley is man
aging editor and which was included
in the state auditors return in the
mandalnus proceedings brought 10y
the supreme court to compel Hostility
to pay the $500 annual expense allow
ance provided by an act of 1907.
Justice Robinson decried the at
tempt to make political capital out of
the justices desire to claim that
which they consider legally theirs,
; and Kositzky's attorney refrained
from further discussion. The article
referred to, however, goes into the
record, and it is reproduced verbatim,
as follows: l-,.,:,,
Judges Expense Money"
Dawson n. D., June 6.-Among the
various appropriations made by the
last legislature, notice an allow
ance Of $500 per year for each su.
preme court Judge. This strikes me
rather strange, as the supreme court
judges do not travel any more on of.
fetal business, since the chambers
were established at Bismarck and
each Judge lives at Bismarck How
ever, we know that during the sum,
mer months some of the judges 90 on
fishing trips to the lakes or visiting
with friends. Will you please explain
to the satisfaction of the state il the
judges can draw this expense money
allowed them, and who pays the
freight?-A. SUBSCRIBER"
mot Entitled to Expenses"
"The judges of the supreme court, of
course, are not entitled to any ex-
pense money, as you point out. Their
homes are at Bismarck, or supposed
to be during their term of office, and
all sessions of the supreme court are
held there. Nevertheless the general
budget bill of the last legislature
(chapter 48. laws of 1870 carried an
appropriation of $500 year for each
supreme court judge for the biennium
as expense money, in addition to the
salaries of the judges. which are
$1,000 q year each. The total appro-
priation for this expense of the judg.
es for the two years was $1,000, as
there are five Judges The taxpayers,
of course, foot the bill.
"This expense is appropriated for
the supreme court judges at every
session Of the legislature. 1t is pro:
vided for In section 72O of the com
piled laws Of North Dakota, edition
of 1879 and is law adopted by the
legislature in 1907. The important
feature of it is that this law provides
that judges do not have to account
for the expanding of this money. The
law says that the $500 year to each
Judge shall be paid in quarterly in
stallments WITHOUT THE FILING
OF ANY TENTED STATEMENTS
In other words, the judges spend this
expense money without in any way &C.
countying for it to the state auditor or
anybody else. Other state employees,
of course, have to account for all they
spend when on trips at state expense.
They must file itemized statements.
but the judges do not have to. -.
''Just Bit Of Graft"
THE $500 a year to each Judge,
therefore. Is frankly bit of personal
graft for the judges. None of them
seems to have any computations about
accepting it. 1t is a nice little tip from
the legislature to the supreme judges
in addition to their salaries. Like their
salaries, they do not have to account
for the spending of it, and 1t doubt
less somes in handy
"As to how this expense graft
for judges originated in 1907, the facts
are probably that the legislature de-
sired to increase the judges salaries,
but 1t prohibits raising them during
their term of office (sec. 80, state con-
stitution). It is probable, therefore,
that the legislature Of 1907 wanted to
give the judges more salary and hit on