The union Democrat., 1869-02-13
asauSslnns Ceamsy Indebseaness 30 Tuolum.
ne County.

Stanislaus County, was creaeeu out ot tue
then western portion of Tuolunne. The act
creating the new county, provided, that the
County Judges, of the old and new counties
should each appoint two Commissioners. for
the purpose Of aseertaining and settling the
amount Of indetedness, that the County of
Stanislaus shosld assume, and when so ascer-
tanned and certified by said Commissioners.
or majority Of them, TO the County Judge of
each county, that the proper authority of Stan
islaus County should issue warrant, in ia
vor of the County Treasurer Of Tuolumne
County, for the sum awarded to said county,
payable out of any funds, that might come
into the treasury of the new county. 1t was
provided in this act that twenty per cent OF
all monies, received in the treasury of Stanis-
laus, should be set apart to liquidate the debt
due this county. and that it should be paid
over every three months.
The Commissioners were appointed, and
unanimously reported, that the amount Stan
islaus County, should assume, of the then in
debtedness of Tuolumne County, should be
sixteen thousand FIVE hundred dollars The
Supervisors Of that county not being satisfied
with the award of the Commissioners, refused
to issue the warrant as required by the act.
Application was then made by this county to
the District Court, to compel the Supervisors
OF S:anislaus County to audit the account and
issue the warrant, that court issued a Ssn-
damus, commanding them to do so, that Or
der was appealed from. The Supreme Court
at the October term 1856, declared the appeal
to be frivolous and unnecessary, and compell-
ed by mandate that county to issue the war
rant as of the date Of july 30, 1854.
Upon presentation of this warrant, to the
Treasurer Of that county, for payment, there
as provided in the act, 1922, 40 which sum
was then paid. While the authorities of that
county were delaying, the issuance of the
warrant, the interest upon it amounted to
more than the payment then made. From
the date of presenting the warrant up to
January, 7th, 1867, there were innumerable
small payments made, amounting in all to
SIC, 500, since that time they have refused
to pay any more, ignoring all interest that
may have accrued, which amounts to SIS 900;
or more. In the summer of 1867, after pro-
per demand had been made, and refusal Civ
en- the District Attorney, was directed to take
proceedings against that county. While pre-
pairing the case, that officer found that SIM
liar one, arising from the creation of ANA
dor out of Calaveras County, was then pend
ing in the Supreme Court. The Supervisors
thought best, with the advice of the District
Attorney, not to commence suit, but wait the
decision of our highest court, which would
settle the question of liability Of q county, as
to interest ON the amount assumed from an
other county when created. The final decis-
ion was made by the Supreme Court IL the
case of Beals VS. Amador County last July,
requiring Amador County to pay interest, on
the amount assumed Of Calaveras, at the time
it was cut off and created. So far as the pub
lie can ascertain. nothing has been done on
the part of Tuolurnne, since this decision.
taxpayers, is why have our Supervisors neg
lected to require of Stanslaus County, pay
ment of the amount due from them? Judg-
ing Stanislaus County by the acts Of its OFF,
GERS in the past, it is hardly to be believed
that they will pay one cent of their indebted
ness to this county, until actually compelled
to do so by law. This county is sadly in need
of all that is due it, warrants issued for cur
rent expenses, now outstanding reach the sum
of about 1000; they are hawked on the
streets for fifty cents on the dollar, the coun-
ty credit is so poor, that no one is willing to
furnish necessary supplies unless they get two
prices for doing so. As an instance, eleven
cords Of wood for the court house was agreed
for, at seven dollars per cord cash, the bill
was audited and allowed for eleven dollars
and sixty-six cents per cord. Comment on
such action is unnecessary. If we had the
amount due from Stanislaus, the county would
be able to furnish itself with such things as
are required, at some figure near the market
price.
The District Attorney should be instructed,
to proceed against that county and recover the
amount due US at once, that we may be re-
lieved ofincreasing burdens. We understand
that one Supervisor is willing the District
Attorney should proceed. providing he will
associate with him one Of two lawyers. and
divide his percentage for their services, an
other, is willing to go on with the case, and
employ counsel that shall be agreeable to him.
if he will divide his percentage. In all candor,
we would ask these Supervisors, if they feel
justified, in delaying the performance of
plain duty 10 the people, because they, may
not like an officer, who was elected in the same
manner that they were. The people put him
there, be is their law adviser, entitled to con-
duct ell suits on the part of the county, and
is fully competent to conduct any business
that has heretofore, or that may hereafter
arise, in which the county has been, or may
be interested. We shoa!d be sorry to think,