The Shasta courier., 1858-03-20
Illegal Warrants.

the assertion made in its edition of Goth Feb.
viz: that since January 10, 1857, the fees il
criminal cases allowed to the Clerk, and claimed
to be illegal, amount to but S227 25. That is
we presume, that it intends to repeat its asser
ton of that date, although the language which
it uses in last weeks edition, viz: 'since Fe5ru
arg, 1851" throws some doubt over the matter
However we take it for granted that the edito
means to be understood as sticking to the origi
nal assertion
! We proved in our edition of the goth Febru.
ary that he was in error. We prove it again b,
publishing descriptions of only three warrants
issued 'eithm the gear during which the Repu5
lican asserts but 1927 25, for fees in crimina
cases, claimed to be illegal, were allowed the
clerk
Here are the warrants, as described and re.
corded in the proper book:
Nos. 577 and 57s, Feb 9, 1857. to W. 8. Jen.
kins- for services clerk in criminal cases
SIP S5.
No l, May Z, 1857, issued to Wm S. Jenkins
clerk of the court of sessions (criminal cases
and clerk of the board of supervisors, months
$75, 1922 80.
Here we have allowed the clerk in the cou
of three months, fees for services in GRIN
business, amounting to Sl,560 65l No :.
case is the clerk permitted to charge more than
five dollars for each case in the District Court
or Court of Sessions, where the charge is felo-
ny, and three dollars where the charge is msde-
meanor. Therefore, if this whole am unit is le-
gal, there must have been between 3l2 and 52O
cases of felony or misdemeanor tried in our
courts during the period of quarter of year
or if all Of it is legal except the 1927 %, it
would leave balance sufficient to pay the clerk
all the fees which he could legally collect on
between 266 and 444 cases of felony or misde-
meanor. We don't believe there have been that
many cases tried in this county for criminal of
fences in the past two years, much less in the
first quarter of 1851.
Thus having shown that we were correct in
asserting that the Republican erred in saying that
the amount allowed the Clerk for fees in GRIM
inal cases during the year named, 1857 was but
$227 25, and having proven that there was
double that amount even in warrant No. i, is
sued May T. 1857, we pass on to the last para
graph of the Republicans article of last week.
Here it is
awe are fond of fair controversy in relation
to matters of public interest. We cannot how
ever, permit ourselves to be led into controver-
sizes with those who either misunderstood or
misrepresent our positions"
The idea that we are seeking controversy
with the editor of the Republican is wholly gra-
tuitous, and would not have been entertained
for single moment by any one who was not
morbidly vain. In treating of public matters
we only consider arguments and representations
mot the man who frakes them nor the paper in
which they may appear. The editor of the Re-
publican should hereafter remember this A
man of inordnate vanity is apt se make the
mistake of OVER estimating his individual i'm
portance, and, when writing, treat of himself in
stead of bis subject
Our neighbor is one of this kind Of people.
He has on several occasions, when replying to
our expostions of what we deemed his errors,
endeavored to avoid the issue, or give it per-
sonal bearing, by throwing out what we thought
discourteous intimations. These we have here
tofore passed over in silence, being 10th to be-
lieve that he sought personal difficulty. Our
forbearance, however, does not seem to have
been correctly interpreted, and we accordingly,
in the paragraph under consideration, find the
intimaton that we either misunderstood OF
misrepresent his positions. Now we desire to
put an end to all this sort of thing. IF man S
exalted self-esteem will not permit him to dis
cuss subject without Juggling himself in, be
should keep his mouth shut, or like the fool
mentioned in Proverbs, whose 'mouth calleth
for strokes" take the consequences We do
not think we misunderstood" the positions of
the editor, although it is possible that we do
but any intimatons, if such be intended, that
we purposely msrepresent them, are not only
gratuitous, but so wholly uncalled for as to JUS
tify US in characterizing them as calumnious,
dastardly and meanly mendacious.