The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1874-10-30
COUNTY ATToRxEv.
.E.Isal card - &c I,ng,.Te.

That Card 40 fl.e E'zbsEe.
Mr. EDIToR The Ledger Of lsst
week contains an article, thrce col |
lmns in length, purporting 10 be a
reply TO the article headed as sbovs,
IN The EMroRIA NEWS of the 10th |
inst. The article Is composed OF
one-fonrih qaibbies and personal
at the unknown author
of the aforesaid article, worthy of
the source from which they ema-
nate. The ether three fonrths are
q combination OF lies, remarkable
for their transparency.
The writer states that during the
administration of the.present conn
ty attorney, there have been two
annual settlements made by the
board of county commissioners of
this county, with its former treas
urer, Mr.. Spicer, and that st each OF
these settlements Mr.. Spiecr claim
ed and WAS ALLOWED a large
amount Of illegal fees.
Now the fellow who takes such a
lively interest IN the affairs of Judge
RuggIes, had he made an exaTnina-
ZION to ascertain the truth, being a
person ofsuch infinite discernment,
he would have found that the re-
port of July, 1874, of Noyes Spicer,
which he analizes so thoroughly in
his article, soas simply filed an the
office Of the county clerk. and has
necer been accepted or passed upon
6y the board Of coasnty commission
ers. And still he says that 10 that
report Mr.. Spicer q0as aHotCed a
large amount of illegal fees. Poor
fellowl
He states that in former years the
same amounts have been allowed
the treasurer. Had he still been ia
search OF truth he would have
found that when Mr.. Spicer filed
his report of July, 1873, that being
the first year of Mr.. Gilletfs admin
istration, he (Mr. Gillctt,) was the
first one TO raise the question as tC
the legality of the fees charged by
Mr.. Spicer. And further, that the
report OF that year was allo wed
subject to any correction which
may be made by tine county attor-
ney.
Had he also inquired of the boart
of county commissioners and the
present county attorney, he woulC
have found that it is their intention
in the final settlement with Ar. Spi
Ger, to correct the report OF 1873, il
SO far as the fees are Illegal. NJ
final settlement with Mr.. Spicer ha
been had, and when one is had,
the fees which ''Lex" asserts as beinl
Illegal are allowed, then it is tim
for him to howl, not before.
But, Mr.. editor, the learned edi
tor of the thrce column article, who
it is stated, is associated with Judg
Ruggles IN his business, las still
further displayed his wonderful
skill and ability in getting into
tight place in this.
Had he still been in search c
truth, he would have found tina
Mr.. Spicer made the claim to th
fees which he designates as illega
under the adcice Of II. IL. Ruggle
, acho told him that IN his opinion 4
, tCdS entitled to them.
f Now, giving Mr.. Ruggles cred
for honesty in his legal opinion
' which he so well deserves, if L
a was honest in so advising Mr.. Sp
F.. Ger, had he been county attorne
t and asked the same question by Il
'' board of county commissioners, /
;, certainly would have told the boa,
that an his Opinion iHr. SpiceT az,
entatled to the fee claimed.
!. Now supposing Mr.. Gillott
have given the board of conn
!, commissioners the advice that Il
fees are legal, (Which he never d
~ do,) would he have done any mo
It or less than Mr.. Ruggles won
have done had he been county a
e torney? OF course not. LearnC
LEX" from this draws the concl
: sion that Mr.. Gillett is an unsa
o county attorney, and Mr.. Ruggl
frst-ciass county attorne
s We don't think another ms
it on the face of the globe, b
e sides Lex" could draw that COZ
e clusion from that syllogism.
Now, if Mr.. Ruggles cid giN
that opinion 90 Mr.. Spicer, if he
, elected county attorney, is
reasonable to presume that he wi
change his opinion and attempt {
recover from Mr.. Spicer the fet
j which he has already advised hi
n he can hold under the law? Furtl
err comment is unnecessary.
= a VOTER.