River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1878-10-03
AN EXPLAIN ALTON.

In our issue of September 9Th we
took occasion to refer to certain case
Which had been brought before the
Supreme Court, in which paragraph
we questioned the practical utility OF
the Office of Assistant Attorney Gener-
al. Our article has elected the follow
ing explanation from the present in
cumbent of that office:
MADISON, Sept. %, 1878.
MEssRs. e. r. MORSE Co.,
River Falls, Wis.
GENTS
My attention has
lust been called TO an ARTICLE appearing IN
your paper under date of Sept. 9TH, OF thlS
year in relation to the office now hpid.
desire sim ply to correct an error OF fact upon
which the article III question is seemingly
based In the case in the supreme Court
brought to annul the charter OF the Muwau-
kee. Lake Shore and Western Railway COM
pany, Judge Dixon was not retained by the
State, but appeared in behalf of the Creditors
of the Company, and is to receive ifoin tnein
whatever OF compensation he may get Tor his
serviees in the case apd Is not to receive from
,ha State any compensation whatever LOT
s,,cb se~yices Since the incoming o. gne
,,roSant Stats administration not dollar has
PPaen Maid ont of he State Treasury for legal
services performed for the state escePt tn5
salaries paid to the AttorGSV ueI pntt 81 en-
myself Neither has any attorney pee ,4a. e III
pIoyed or retained to appear for the ST. &c Va. "a
of the work (which has been and Is now NJ
inconsiderable amOuntl having been done by
General Wilson and myself:
Very respectfully yours,
H. w. CHYNowRTH,
Asst. Atty. General.
The article to which the Attorney
General has referred was based upon
information CLEANED from newspapers
published at Madison. Those papers,
by reason of their close proximity to
the capitol, have unequalled advan-
tages for obtaining news from the eX-
ecative and judicial departments'of the
State government and they are reason
ably supposed to disseminate reliable
intelligence concerning matters OF pup
lie interest which transpire there. In
referring TO the case before us the
Madison Democrat of August 5lst
saws, Judge L. S. Dixon is counsel
for the State, with the sanction OF the
Attorney General" and the State
Journal. published on or about the
same date, in list of cases called IN
the supreme Court contains the follow
ing: Estate e.r rel. Attorney General
vs.. the Milwaukee, Lake Shore q ives
tern Railway Company. Argued on
demurrer to information by A. d. Cary
for defendant and by l.. S. Dixon fol
relator." Now, we submit that IN
perusing the extracts above quoted the
casual observer would very naturally
conclude that Judge Dixon was IN The
employ of the State and that the State
would pay him for his services, ba'
for the credit of the present admins
tration we are pleased to receive th'
above assurance that the State has IN
Cured no expense for legal counse
outside the Attorney Generals office
for. though the State had am Attorne.
General and an Assistant Attorne.
General, during the four years ending
December 3lst. 1877. while our IKE
form" friends ran The machine,
paid out for legal services. aside iron
the salaries drawn by its law ei5ceFs
over twenty -four thousand dollars.