The Idaho world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1864-1918, 1866-07-21
Boise County Relief BiIl--What Became
of the Money!

Bill Reminding to Boise county the Of 1888 3
, ritoriaI prisoners.
The Committee appreciated blythe Legislature to asce
tain Aow much due to Boise county, reported th
amount and stated that their conclusion based upo
aIeport which had been previously made to the Boar
OF County Commissioners of Boise county, by Commi
' tee appointed BY thenato investigatethe-s
To prove this assertion quote from the Idah
World, of January 9th, as follows:
"This estimate made by special Committee, az
lpoDted in January last by the.Baard of County Com
missioners of that county Boise to whom the matte
was referred, with instructions to ascertain and repor
the amount paid by the county for these TeitoEa
poses"
The Committee here referred to as having been ap
pointed by the County Commissioners, consisted of JOIN
NJ Murphy and Geo. c. HoCgh; and when we go to tn
records of the County Commissioners and examine thei
report made June go 1885, we find that their estimate
of the amount due EXTENDED APRIL 3D., 1865 yet thu
Legislature although they took this report for basis
UP TO JANUARY 1sT 1865 thus allowing and appropatins
at least $1,000 than they should have DONE Idaho
Union.
l. The above extract from the Idaho Union is
contained within about thirty lines of that
paper. In those thirty lines there is-no less
than FIVE DISTINCT falsehoo DDS "a falsehood for
each six lines. It's article on Boise county
finances will average about as we'll,
First: We aresinformad that '4he Commit
tee appointed by. the Legislature to ascertain
how much was due Boise county, reported
the amount and stated that their conclusion
was based'upona report which had been pre-
Yiously made to the Board of Commissioners
of Boise county, by committee appointed
by them to iREestigatesthe subject"
This is untrue. The auther of the article
does not know what he is talking about. The
bill was originally introduced in the House
In THAT bill the sum named was in accor-
dance with the report of the committee ap-
pointed by the County Commissioners but
that bill as introduced NEVER PASSED either
branch of the Legislature.
I'd, To prove the assertion, the Union pre-
tends to quote from the World of January
9th. That quotation is a FORGERY. No such
editorial remark was ever madein the World.
The quotation is taken from the report of the
Joint Select Committee appointed by the
Legislature to investigate this subject, which
report was published in the World ofthat
date. The quotation as it appears in that re-
port REFERRED TO THE ORIGINAL BILL before
andgnot to the billas it finally
became law.
To make the matter clear, we explain : The
bill when first introduced appropriated for
the relief of Boise county for keeping Terri
torial prisoners, the sum found due blythe
committee appointed by the County Commits
sioners. The appropriation was of Interest
to all the counties, and Aas much had been
said about h,by the Statesman and Others in
terested in Territorial warrants, the Repre-
sentatives from Boise county desired that the
claim should be thoroughly investigated9I
They were satisfied that this county had ad
vaaced a large amount of money to the Ter
ritory4in. keeping Territorial prisoners, and
that it was just that the money should be re-
funded. Aresolution was adopted requiring
the presiding officers of each branch ofthe
to appoint Joint Select Com |
mittee to Investigate the whole subject, and
report the amount, if any due Boise
county. That committee Of six was compoa.
sented in the Copncilexcept one in.order thst
all should be satisfied that the .elaim should |
be paid. On examination it was found that
some of the records and papers which the
snmmttee, appointed by the commissioners
he year BEFORE had consulted, were destroy
ID by the fire in Idaho City in May, 1861
they Therefore had to make an estimate of
he amount by consulting other sources OF
nformati5n-and they finally reported san
amendment to the. bill, striking out, the
amount found blythe County Commissioners,
md inserting that fonnd by themselves. The
committee unanimously reporting the amonnty
page of report, said;
The process by which We attained the result NOW sub
ntted to your honorable body necessarily
from that adopted by the FORMER COUNTY
ITTEE and the slight difference between the two results
erved through two independent channels is perhaps
he best evidence that could he desired of the spirit of
andor with which that report made, and of the
ectness of the estimate arrived at and submitted
oryour action.
Sd, The committee who reported the amount
o the. County Commissioners was not COM
,ased of TWO members, but of. THREE-Mr.
3. II Anderson, one of the Commissioners,
Being one Of the number The most active
member was Judge Hough, the Republican
District Attorney.
18th, The impression sought to be conveyed