Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1921-11-10

Resolution OF COunty IOmmISSll
Brant Has Been !
Of th,
The Record appears to have been an
important subject at the recent meet
ing Of the county board. "A long
winded resolution attacking the Rec
ord appears in the minutes published
elsewhere. AS we said some weeks
ago, the whole affair has been an at
tempt by certain disgruntled parties
on the board to play some petty pea
nut politics. In q way, it is money
in the Records pocket, for the reso-
luton must be paid for at the rate Of
nine cents a line, and it amounts to
just s. .7S in coin Of the realm. So,
we should worry.
But about the facts The resolu-
tion Incorporated in the proceedings
Of the board is untrue to start with.
In the second place, said resolution
convicts the auditor Of failing to
properly record the proceedings Of the
board, for the resolution admits that
an investigation Of the register of
deeds Office was held, while the min
utes prepared and published by the
county auditor doesn't say one word
Of such investigation. Has it come
to the point that only those things
the county auditor desires made pub
lie appears in the minutes? If he can
delete any reference to an investiga-
ton of the register Of deeds Office, how
do we know that he is publishing 9TH
er important matters that transpire :?
Taking up the resolution by sec
tions, let us examine the facts. Was
the attempted investigation Of Mr..
-Irvine's Office unjust? We say it was.
and that it was an attempt to rlay a
little cheap politics, and to allow
q couple Of Mr. Irvine's personal ene-
mics to take a crack at him
The board charges that Mr.. Irvine az
lowed one Zelda Mewing TO sign certi,;
fled copies Of instruments as his depu-
ty when she was not his deputy.
Answer: Mr.. Irvine didn't do any
such thing. Mr.. Irvine never did
appoint Zelda Mewing his deputy
and neither did A. y. Cell, Mr.. II
vines. predecessor. Yet, the county
board never attempted to attack Mr..
Cell on that score. The Record man
took the matter up with Mr.. Bfant
Monday, md, after looking through,
| }all the - for years past, he in
forms Us that he can find no evidence
that Zelda Mewing was anybody's
deputy. Hence, the claim Of the CONF
missioners that Mr.. Irvine knowingly
allowed Zelda Mewing to sign papers
as his deputy and to draw q deruty's
salary ars untrue Mr. Brant can
show no salary voucher that bears
Mr.. Irvine o. K. asS his deputy.
& II she signed any valuable papers,
she did 50 knowing that she was not
Mr. Irvine's deputy and never had
been and had never even been q
deputy for Mr.. Cell. The fact is
that she did not sign any kind Of doe
ument that might in any way injure
parties having business with the Of
fee. If she had done SO, Mr.. Irvine
is bonded and would have been re
sponsfble. In no case was it any
business Of the county commission
ers. l'sss.is E5.55 ss
As to the charge that Mr. Irvine
violated athe plain language Of the
/ law" in appointing his daughter q
deputy when she was not 81 years Of
age, we answer that aSdiligent search
+ Of the North Dakota law fails 70
show any such tlplafn language Of the
law. /. The fact Is that no age limit
il specified for . deputy register Of
deeds AT least, the Record can find
none, and We would request the county
8g commisisone or their political
hackers IN the scrap specify the
section requiring such age limit
Only in one instance have the com
sioners hit upon anything like 9
technical point to kick about The
4 appointment of Ernestine Irvine does
set forth that she IS. 21 yares Of age,
The blank being one Of several made
up long before the appointment was
made. MI. Irvine should have struck
ont the phrase covering the age limit
when he filed the appoi ointment, as the
law did not require Il ne states
\ that he failed 10 note that part ii
blank when ne filled IN the name and md
signed II His statement II no doub,
true, for only fool would have
& signed . state tement that his deputy