Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1871-12-02
The Carson SWindlc.

En. STANDARD Sir: | have noticed
in two recent issues Of your paper the
statement Ct an account by Isaac Carson
against the Territory, with editorial conf
mcnts OH the same, AS my certificate as
the then acting Judge of the Sd Judicial
District is attached to the same, justice to
myself, perhaps, requires me to make a
statement Of the facts Of that case, and of
my views Of my duty with reference to
such accounts. In doing so do not wish
reflect, by implication or otherwise, upon
the motives or actions of MIR. Carson or
Mr.. Sparks. 1t wonld be very improper
for me as a Judge to do so.
Thi, claim was made out twice. The
first time the amount was about half that
subsequently allowed. / examined both
the items and the amount of the first ac.
count, and attached my certificate to it.
Subsequently this claim was presented to
me again at Olympia for my certificate
Same satisfactory reason was given for my
second presentation, but l do not remen-
Der exactly what it was. l was about to
go aboard the boat on my return home.
| asked it it was the same as the other.
l was told by Mr.. Carson it was, and at
tached my certificate to it without ever
looking at the items Or the amount. When
the claim was published, l unfortunately
found it to be twice the amount of the first
bill. Mr.. Carson probably has an explain
alton of this. If so, if he desires, he can
state it. Such are the facts attending my
certificate to the published account"
Now as to my official duty in regard to
such claims. 1 have always understood
the law as stated by you in your first arti.
Gle; that the certificate of the Judge to
such accounts meant two things, and only
two things, whatever might be its form:
LIST, That the person presenting the &C.
count performed the services therein al
legged; I'd, That in the opinion of the
Judge such person had a just and legal
claim against the Territory. The Judge
did not attempt 10 fix the amount that tie
claimant should be allowed He is in DO
sense an auditor Of these claims He only
gave the items Of the account hurried
examination to see that he was not imposed
upon, and to prevent the very inference
attempted to be drawn in this case, that
the attaching of his name impaired an
approval Of the amount charged. If the
Judge should attempt to fix the amount, it
would neither be binding on the Auditor
or claimant. Such was also the view taken
by the Territorial Auditor, as his letters to
various persons will fully show. Hence
the Judge only satisfied himself that the
services had been performed and Of the le-
gal nature of the claim, and that it was not
exorbitant beyond all reason, and left the
amount to be paid on each claim entirely
to the judgment of the Auditor. lie, the
Auditor, could reject the whole claim, or
he could allow part and reject part.
lie could also suspend the whole claim, or
part Of it, for further and more satisiac.
tory proof of its rcasonablcncss or Justice,
and if not furnished, indefinitely postpone
the whole thing.
l hope you will do me the justice to be-
lieve that if had not been mistaken as to
the items and amount, could not have
given the certificate | did.
o. JACOBS.