Idaho semi-weekly world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1875-1908, 1879-03-25
FURTHER ABOUT THE REPORT
OF THE LATE GRAND JURY.

liic It'll lHoI appears 90 HIS own dt-
torney and as attorney for John Cor
man, late Assessor and Tax Collector,
and James Moriarty. late Auditor aud
Clerk Of the Board Of County Commits
sioners, to defend himself and his eli
ents against ian implied censure" by
the late Grand Jury Why did he
not also appear for Fulmer and Jones,
bis late associate Commissioners We
desire the District Attorney to throw
little more light on the transaction
Of the Board Of County Commissioners
at the October term, 1878. How does
the record happen to show the money
was counted, and found all right, on
Wednesday before Mr.. Hawley left?
How did it happen that the money
was really counted(?) on the Sunday
following? How about the Commits
sioners taking the word Of their clerk
that a large sum Of the County money
was in Wells, Fargo & Co.'S safe in
the Auditors Office, and in gold ba,'s2
How about the clerk being able to
| tell just how much money, in addition
to the gold bars, was necessary to
be brought before The Commissioners.
in order that the count could be made?
How much money was counted that
day besides what Fox brought in to
make up what the Auditor said was
lacking?
How about Eompkins' sickness,
about his being around on Wednesday
aud till Saturday before the coumf2J
took place on Sunday? Let the Dis
trict Attorney throw all the light pos
slble on these matters, and when he
gets through we may adopt his Ian
guage and say:
"lnstead of censuring them for such &C,
/
man would rather praise the spirit which
impelled the Commissioners to neglect, fol-
week, their own private business for the
purpose of serving the county, when such
service was not actually required by law
Till then all who understood what
was done and what was not done at
the October term by the County Com
missionsrs, will be entitled to harbor
their own suspicious.
As to the censure upon the Asses
sor and Tax Collector, the Attorneys
explanations are thin at least. The
facts stated in the report are not con
troverted, because the showing ol
Messrs. Brown and Richards rendered
it impossible. Granting all the Dis
trlct Attorney claims-that it is best
for the county that the Assessor leaves
poll tax receipts with employers some
times till a clean up is made, it does
not follow that such collections can
not be made by the LIST OF August o
each year, nor that it is probable thai
the large amounts mentioned in the re
port of the experts were carried five
and eight months beyond that time
and through and into the very dulles
season Of the year. We will not ash
the District Attorney to tell us all h
knows in this connection; but we dc
| ask for a little more light
i As to Mr.. Moriarty, let the District
Attorney give us information on the
following points: How were he ane
Tompkins on such terms of confidence
that ne had III his possession and care
$4,000 more or less of the county
money on the Sunday when the so
called count was made, so that BIZ
could positively assure the Commits
sioners that that amount was in hi:
safe and large amount Of it in golt
bars9 How did it occur that he ane
l'ompkins had such perfect under
standing about the condition of die coun
| ,..s.,,.x, .L.,t = 4 All H..