The Idaho recorder. [volume] (Salmon City, Idaho) 1886-1927, 1922-04-28
EXPENSES OF COUNTY
OFFICES CONSIDERED

Mr.. Editor: The Forum" column of
various state papers contain regular
ly contributed articles indicating that
there are all sorts of ideas on the tax
question. One writer in nearby ex-
change deprecates the tendency to at
tack salaries in looking for tax re-
duction. In the abstract he is right.
The salaries are far from all the ex-
pense and as a rule county offices are
not and have not been over-paid. Dur
ing the period of high wages in other
lines-the period when common labor
for instance, was demanding five dol
lars day, county officers were draw
ing much less salary. The writer also
points out that many of the county
officers salaries are not paid out of
the tax money collected-they are
paid out of fees collected by the office.
In some instances there might be fair
ness in some reduction. But it cannot
be great in any event and still expect
that competent and desirable people
will accept Offices. The proposition,
however, that simply because certain
office earns fees sufficient to meet the
salaries of the office these salaries
should not be reduced, is a falacy. If
the office shows earnings in excess of
compensating the officer and employees
of the Office reasonably for the work
performed, that excess belongs to the
taxpayers of the county and not to
the person who happens at that time
to be the incumbent of the office. If
there is any profit, in other words,
the profit should go to the county to
help to that extent in meeting the
other expenses and in reducing taxes
that much. The county is forced to
maintain the Office during lean as we'll
as fat periods and there are other
expenses connected with any county
office as we'll as the expense of sal
aries. The money should either go to
the taxpayers or the fees should be
reduced and the money saved to people
who are forced through circumstance
to pay the fees. None of it ever did or
does belong to the individual holding
the office, and if anyone is entitled
. to profit out of the Office it is the
taxpayers and not the Office holder.
Right at this point the duty devolves
upon the county commissioners to ex-
ercise their prerogative of judiciously
| fixing salaries, both as to elective and
appointive offices. AS pointed out
the amount of the salaries is not the
main objection. But incidental expen-
ses are to be looked after. Not long
ago the unimportant Office of county
! attorney succeeded in piling up nearly
two thousand dollars in expenses in
client to an unwarranted number of
lawsuits growing out of backfence
quarrels up at Gilmore. The same off
cial had applied for and obtained
| large allowance for his office besides
the salary. 1t is believed that special
attorneys might very we'll be employ
ed to perform all the legal require
ment5 of a county attorney at less
than one-fourth of what the Office
costs now. Not long ago the offices of
probate judge and school superinten-
dent were filled by one and the same
person at salary of less than half
the present salary attaching to either
of these offices. Six hundred dollars
was the amount drawn by the dual
officer of probate judge and school
| superintendent. VINDEX.