Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1862-03-01
Can Better Results be Expected!

dill til" present superintendent oi ih"i"i ~
t.!r,. will no, he surprised at the petty spite
la.rlv Exhibited a-sinst us by him in 'Lr st
=, n n; of an accoun, Of few dollars. due IL
Z, gar ogo. for services rendered. In fact
:, invariably the sumo had been the exp'ri-
,nc. Of al. " it'll whom H. had had business
cr .,cia! relations. that before h. entered upon
III. du,i,-- incident To- his Office We predicted
IN. state of affairs which now exist i'll the In
dian department of this Territory. Nc man
tan have more and Liii.rer enemies. in proper
iianto the number of mon with " HON he came
ii contact. His ,io!cn, temper. lis bitter >ar-
,asln aimed at any one who mi :hi CONE with
in the pal, Of his disrlcasure. his taun's and
iyrs again>, the principles Of morality, have
luili up dscp-seaied hatred asains, him.
Last week We called at Mr.. Eendal's office
and left bill for legal advertisement in
serted by him prior TO his departure for the
Atlantic States. The charge for this adyrr-
,isemeni for thirteen weeks would have been
S22 so; but the suit having, been Withdrawn,
the full publication was no, completed, and
We rendered cur bill for eight wcok,---Slj.
We were eo"soderaLiy surprised to receive a
note. Hro.gh tie po'f-egfce, stating that he
had made ,pccial coatroc, with liz for the
advertisement for the full term OF thirteen
week at SIO-lc>s than oie-half oIr usual
rates for an advertisement Of that length
And further, that he "was no longer attorney
in the case and We must noi lock 10 him for
the bil''!
We now certainly supposed that 10 alter
native was left lis but to look to other parties
for our pay, and consequently we were not 4
little surprised to receive second note from
Mr.. Kendall, also through tie post-oGce, dat
cd the next day proposing to pay us So, if
we would receipt in full This he did after
asserting that "he was no longer attorney in
the case, and we must not look to him for the
bill" Not having telegraphic communication
with Vancouver, where the client III the above
case resides, we are at loss to account for
the change.
Another incongruity consists in the proposed
reduction. If we take Mr. Kendall's position
that contract was actually made (Which we
grant for the sake of argument, at least,) then
we surely should have received the price
agreed upon. If the number of insertions of
the advertisement was reduced by him, or his
agent, that was surely rot our fault. On the
other hand. if it is just and proper for Mr.. X.
to disregard a contract which he insists was
made, then we maintain that, in strict Justice
to his client, the reduction should have been
in exact proportion to the price agreed upon.
The advertisement ut $40 for thirteen weeks
would have amounted to Sc 16 for eight
weeks and the client has been cheated out Of
81 4,if we figure the matter down TO nicely
The amount of money invo!vedin the above
statement is insignificant, but the principie
which actuated Mr. Kendall is characteristic.
Because of his never allowing an opportunity
to slip by to vent his petty spite we raised
our first objections to his appointment, and
his conduct since has more than established
their business.