Case Name: CUNNINGHAM v. UMATILLA COUNTY
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1910-12-31
Citations: 57 Or. 517
Docket Number: 
Parties: CUNNINGHAM v. UMATILLA COUNTY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 517–525

Head Matter:
Decided December 31, 1910.
CUNNINGHAM v. UMATILLA COUNTY.
[112 Pac. 437.]
Counties — Employment of Detective — Ratification.
1. The employment of a detective by a county, though irregular, was ratified by the action of the county court in allowing the bill for his services and directing payment thereof by the county.
Counties — Debt Limit — Constitutional Inhibition — Application.
2. A constitutional debt limit imposed on a county is applicable only to indebtedness voluntarily incurred, and not to such as cannot be avoided without danger to the peace and good order of the community, and hence the fact that the limit had been reached was no valid objection to the county’s liability for the services of a detective employed to assist in enforcing the liquor law.
From Umatilla: Henry J. Bean, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Justice McBride.
This is a suit by Charles Cunningham and A. F. Michael against Frank Saling, county clerk of Umatilla County, Oregon, and ex-officio clerk of the county court of said county; George W. Bradley, treasurer of Umatilla County, Oregon, and the Thiel Detective Service Company, a corporation, to enjoin the delivery and payment of a warrant drawn by order of the county court of Umatilla County in favor of the Thiel Detective Agency for $856, for services rendered the county in procuring evidence to convict violators of the local option law in such county. The evidence tends to show that in the year 1908 violations of the local option law became so frequent and flagrant as to become a public scandal. The local officers were appealed to by the district attorney to assist in procuring evidence against the offenders, but either could not or would not afford him any assistance. The court not then being in session, he brought the matter of procuring a detective before the county judge, who agreed that such was the proper course and assured him that it was probable that the county court would ratify such action. Thereupon, on request of the district attorney, the Thiel Detective Agency sent an operative, through whose efforts a large number of offenders were convicted and a large amount of money in fines was paid into the county treasury. The agency presented a bill for $356 for this service to the county court, which approved the same and ordered it paid. The indebtedness of the county at the time exceeded the $5,000 limit prescribed in the constitution. Judgment for defendant and plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief and oral arguments by Messrs. Carter & Smythe.
For respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Gilbert W. Phelps.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McBride
delivered the opinion of the court.
While the original employment of the detective in this matter was irregular and legally unauthorized, the action of the county court in allowing the bill and directing the payment of it amounted to a ratification of the original employment, so in this respect the case stands in the same condition as if the county court had employed the detective in the first instance: Steiner v. Polk County, 40 Or. 124 (66 Pac. 707).
While the testimony makes it clear that the indebtedness of the county exceeded the constitutional limit, yet it has been held that the constitutional inhibition only extends to voluntary indebtedness and not to such as is thrust upon it by operation of law, by which phrase is meant such expenses as cannot be avoided without danger to the peace and good order of the community. Thus, in Municipal Security Company v. Baker County, 33 Or. 339 (54 Pac. 174), it was held that the employment of an expert to check the county books to ascertain whether there had been any embezzlement of the county funds was a duty imposed upon the county by operation of law, and that a warrant issued in payment of such services was valid, although the county had already greatly exceeded the constitutional limit of indebtedness. It was no doubt true that the county authorities could have refrained from hiring an expert and have trusted to chance, and to the honesty of the official concerned, as to the outcome. They had the physical power to do so, but, as the court said:
"It was such a service, so far as we are informed by the record, as the county could not well dispense with for the time being, even, and perform understandingly and intelligently the functions pertaining to its organization."
In the same case the court say:
"The most important function of the county is to maintain a local government subordinate to, but an arm of, the State. Now, the expense incident to and necessary under the laws prescribed by the State to organize and maintain such a government may be said to be thrust upon it by law."
This is good law and fits the case at bar. The principal function of every county government is the protection of society, the enforcement of law, and the punishment of crime. This is the highest and most pressing duty which the law imposes upon any county or upon the county authorities, and any expense necessary to punish crime and bring the guilty to justice is an expense imposed upon the county by law. It is a duty that admits of no volition. The authorities cannot avoid it if they would; they should not if they could. In all expenditures for the punishment of crime the real question is, are they necessary in order to secure the enforcement of the criminal laws? If they are, then a duty exists to make the expenditure, and it may be said to be involuntary in the sense that it is not an expense sought and incurred as the result of deliberate bargain, but arises from the necessity of enforcing the law.
In this case it is evident that the law was being flagrantly violated, and that the local authorities either sympathized with its violation or were too inefficient to prevent it. Under such circumstances there rested upon the county court the duty to use such measures as were necessary to prevent and punish crime and they have done so effectually. To hold with the contention of plaintiffs would allow many crimes to go unpunished. If a murder should be committed in Umatilla County and it became necessary to offer a reward, some friend of the murderer, under the guise of a taxpayer, could come forward and enjoin the county from doing so, on the pretext that it was exceeding its indebtedness. The hands of the county authorities ought not to be so fettered, and they will not be.
Judgment affirmed. Affirmed.