The Shasta courier., 1859-05-21
The Jail Keeper Act.

We had thougnt tnat tnlS Dill SO STUCK In the
throat of the tax payers of the County, that no
one would ever dare to take it up and defend it.
II seems, however, that at last, after a good
round months digesting of our former articles,
a gentleman with arm sufficiently pussant and
beart sufficiently doughty has been found to
enter the field. Like Don Quixote, of old, how
ever, who fought so valianty for the damaged
virtue of Spanish maidens, he fights with little
discretion and less logic, although valiantly
enough.
His effort appears in the Republican of last
week, over the signature of " Citizen" He says
that the article had been denounced in manner
and under circumstances that indicated desire
" to throw odium on the author of the act"
Isn't this wonderful We ask "Citizen" if
there is any odium to be attached to any one
on account of this bil who is it, if it is not the
author? For one we do censure the author
for his persistence in passing this bill in face of
the protest of a large number of the most res
Ipectable men ofthis county But while condemn
ing this neact, it does not therefore follow that
we must necessarily forget the good that lie has
done. Will Citizen" not agree that we have
the same right to dsapprove an act of repre-
sentative that he has to approve il? But, "Citf-
zen' says, after examining the bill, that be was
altogether mistaken in regard to its true char
acter and effect. Says he:
1t has been charged by some that it legal
lied all the outstanding scrip from the COM
lmencement of the County organization; by
|others that it legalizes certain Jenkins and Van
Horn scrip, said to be illegal; by others that it
legaizes outright all warrants issued for Jail
Keepers services; that it provides for exhorbit-
ant charges in future for such services; that it
gives the power to the Board of Supervisors to
render that legal demand against the County
which the Supreme Court has decided not only
illegal but unjust and without equity"
"Citizen" says each and every one of these
charges are incorrect. This is very clever
dodge, but lacks originality. The plan of dodg-
ing the merits Of a question, but setting up "
man of straw and knocking it down again, has
become too blad trick to win. We assert that
we have never made the first, second and third
charges enumerated in the foregoing extract
from Citizens" production-nerer Further
we have never heard one of these charges made
by any man. We challenge Citizen" to prove
his assertions. If we have made one of these
charges, let him quote from the paper. We have
file of the Courier at his disposal for this pur-
pose. We challenge him to name man who
has ever made the objections to the bill which
he names Name the man. We challenge you
to do so. Prove your charges, or admit that
to use the mildest term possible-you have made
a mistake.
That lit provides for exorbtant charges in
future for keeping the County Jail, we still
contend. So long as the Sherif7s office remains
and worth $4,000 or SIS, 900 clear per
year, we say any amount allowed him out of the
County for keeping the Jail, is exorbitant pay
ment. We say it provides for the payment of
this charge, for the reason that it empowers the
Board of Supervisors to do so-a power with
which that body was not invested before the
passage of this act. The sixth charge is also
untrue, so far as we are concerned The bill
does " give the power to the Board of Superyi-
sors to render that legal demand against the
county which the Supreme Court has decided"
illegal. We have said that much, but we never.
have asserted that the Supreme Court said the
demand was "unjust and without equity" We
have never heard any man say this of the Court
We do not believe "Citizen" can name man
who has. If he can, let him do so.
"a Shasta newspaper says that Colus County
was stricken from the provisions of this Act he
cause II was more than the people could stand
while the fact is it did not go far enough That
is specimen of the fairness of that Sheet. IF
the subject of illegal fees and charges was pro-
bed to the bottom, dating back from the organ
zatlon OF the County, some parties who are now
20 loud mouthed in denouncing this Act might
ind the missels that they have flung at others
light on their own heads''
AS the Courier is the only Shasta newspaper
hat has stirred this matter to any extent. we
suppose we are alluded to in this extract It is
absolutely untrue that we ever said that "Co-
usa county was stricken from the provisions of
bis act because it was more than the people
would stand.' This is our language, as it ap-
'eared IN the Courier of April 23d
We presume the law was more than ii uas
'et'ered the people of Colusa would swallow
ience that county was excepted from the oper-
'tlons OF the bill. So re suppose.
And yet Citizen" asserts without anv sort of
that we positively stated that Co.
usa was excepted from the act because it was
more than the people would stand p Is he not
nice mana most proper man to talk about
fairness ~ We say we presume thing is
80, and straightway he goes to neiphbor and
'eports that we say that that thing is sol Is
hat fair Would such conduct in private af- |
airs not be condemned as dishonorable?
The intimation in the latter part of this para
graph does not touch US. If it is intended for
Is, however, we will thank q Citizen to do the |
probing which he intimates would hurt some
me. Ifit is intended for us, "Citizenn must
10 this " probing" and make it good, or he must
tand self-convicted of the crime of making
harges, by inuendo, which he cannot substan- |
iate-which are in fact wholly false So far as
he Courier is concerned, Mr. Citizen, we saw.
Lay on, Macduff"
Whether the Sheriff of the County has re-
eived, or does now receive, a greater conpen-
ation for his services than he ought has moth |
ne to do with the matter, if TOO large it should
We cut down."
Oh, mol 1t matters not, even if the SheriH-s
fice pays more than that of District Judge, or
supreme Judge, or Governor, the County should
i've him a bonus of near two thousand doIla-.