88 Seventeenth Annual Repcvrt of tite 



To get the question settled in the most satisfactory manner, the 

 county attorney of Erie County entered into an agreement with 

 the Attorney-General to present the question to the Appellate Divi- 

 sion of the Supreme Court. After due consideration, that court 

 held that the question was not properly before the court and did 

 in it pass upon it. In the meantime, the board of supervisors of 

 Erie County had refused to audit and provide for the payment of 

 the claims presented by the sheriff of Erie County for enforcing 

 the provisions of a quarantine notice duly laid by the Commis- 

 sioner of Agriculture on that county against the disease known 

 as foot and month disease, basing their refusal upon the opinion 

 of the county attorney that it was not a county charge. There- 

 upon proceedings were commenced to compel the board of super- 

 visors of Erie County to audit and pay such claims. This was 

 heard by the Supreme Court, which, after duly considering the 

 evidence and the law, held that the charge was not a county 

 charge, but a state charge. Thereafter, under date of April 21, 

 1909, the present Attorney-General wrote the Commissioner of 

 Agriculture as follows : 



State of Neav York, 

 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE, 



Albany, April 21, 1900. 



Hon. Raymond A. Pearson, Commissioner of ArjrirtiHure, Albany, N. Y.: 



Dear Sir. — I acknowledge your letter of tlie 16th inst. in reference to 

 the mandamus proceeding brought by the county attorney of Erie County 

 against, the board of supervisors to compel the payment of bills incurred 

 by the sheriff in paying deputy sheriffs for enforcing the foot and mouth 

 quarantine inaugurated by your department. I have a copy of the order 

 granted by Mr. Justice White denying the application for a. writ of man- 

 damus in tins matter. It recites that the denial is on the ground that the 

 charge is properly against, the State rather than against the county. In 

 view of the fact, however, that the State was in no way represented in this 

 argument and that the attitude of the Attorney-General was not correctly 

 stated to the court, it is my opinion that this decision is not binding upon 

 your department and that it would be safer for you to wait until the matter 

 has been passed upon by a court after hearing the arguments on both sides, 

 before taking action to pay these claims. 



Very truly yours, 



[Signed] EDWARD R. O'M ALLEY, 



Attorney-General. 



