The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-03-18

/ III. " LILLIAN II. w ALhEh TAXES d
very cool and summary method Of an
swering our expose of his determined
effort to extort money out the County
Treasury while County Auditor, with
0utithe shadow of law authorizing
it. He chooses the restricted circula-
ton Of the Evansville Courier in
which to make his defense, and in
that he does not touch single vital
point iD the controversy. He does
not answer the charge, that in pushing
his claim of 81 1873 30, unwarranted by
law, and in drawing the allowance for
a part Of it, he made himself liable
to indictment by the Grand Jury and
conviction as a criminal, the fate
which he sought for his successor,
Mr.. BIscH. He does not notice our
objection to the character of his
charges, which are beyond all prece
dent. His answer is simply that he
was advised by his attorney that he
could obtain judgment, and there
fore the lawsuit of four years dura-
ton.
1t would have been more consist
ent with the position to which Mr..
WALKER aspires if he had met the
case fairly, and answered the charge
of extortion; if be had explained
the justice Of his claim of near ST.
290 for folding up and sticking away
in pigeon holes an armfull Of papers;
if he had thrown some light upon the
charges for holding copy and
g reading proof" for the printers, the
item for County Agent" &c.
HE JUDGED HIS OWN CASE.
He alleges in his card that the
Commissioners were prevented from
allowing the claim on account Of the
opinion of the County Attorneys.
The Commissioners were doubtless
influenced in their Judgment by the
opinion of their attorneys, but we
think the records" show that ex-
Auditor WALKER had previously
decided the case against himself, |
and that he knew that he had no
legal right to the allowances.
We find that at the June Term,
1860, in presenting his bill for one /
quarters salary of the 500, which he
had been accustomed to drawing for
=" extra services" he attaches to his
claim for S25, bill of items amount
ing to 81, 085 So This bill of 81 ,O85
80 he does not ask to have allowed,
but says he has compiled it to
show the value of extra SER
vices !" rendered for which no
other than the $25 allowance
is provided by law, and to show
that $50 is not exhorbitant. And in
that very "bill of items of June,
1860, are some charges Of a precisely
similar character to those for which
we find him the next year prosecuting
a suit. IF there was, according to Mr..
no law authorizing them in
1860, it would require more than the
shrewdness of the ex-Auditor and
his attorneys to convince the Com
as they afterwards failed
% convince Judge PARRETT, that
here was law for it in 1861.
SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS EXTRA.
We proved eonclusively that Mr..
WALKER was guilty of extOrtion in
eceiving any portion Of the allow
nee made by the Commissioners on
he claim for which he instituted suit.
nd, according to Judge PARRETT's
every single item of which
7as unauthorized by law. But this
; not all. Judge PARRETT decides
n the opinion from which we quoted T..
n Monday, that the Constitution of 6
$50, which authorized the Commits 7
toner's to make an allowance to the ]
Auditor not exceeding 800 per I
ear, was repealed BY the statute of :,
355, and that, therefore, the lal0 did =
OF authorize any allo,0ance 1ohateUer e
,r ertra services. Aud yet for the !.
even years, from 1855 to 1862, we :
nd that with the regularity for which :,
democratic Office holders are distin-
lished, ex-Auditor WALKER drew
is quarterly allowance of S25 90, fl
taking the aggregate Of SEVEN HUN e,
RED DOLLARS, for which, according a,
} the decision Of Judge JARRETT in D
IS own case, there is no authority A
nder the law. h