Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1880-10-29

endoavor TO explain away the damn
ing evidence which has accumulated
that he is no longer fit to fill the
double office Of Sheriff and Assessor
OF this county, and is totally unworthy
of the confidence and respect OF the
people who have, in times past, so
leniently passed over his many er-
rors as defects of Judgment rather
than careless neglect of duty or pre-
medilated wrong. His circulac Is
the mildest and geutlcst measure of
oilv-gammon ever dealt out by Il
trembling aspirant for CONTINUE
ance of favor, and is in such remark
able contrast to the vigorous if not
profane, the forciblc if not vulgar
language, which that gentlemen us
ually employs when his official
acts are called into question, that
we incline to the belief that his epistle
is tue work of some adept in SPECIAL
pleading who well knows that " VIM
egar never catches flies" and places
ga forlorn hope" reliance on the mo-
lasses-jug.
Mr.. Billings first denial is that
he failed to property assess the pro-
perity of the Northern Pacific Rail-
road, as charged by Mr.. Kratz. We
propose to prove the allegation by
unquestionabe proof-,he official
record. In April 1878, before the
annual assessment was made, Dis
trict Attorney Bloomfield wrote q
letter of instructions, based upon a
recent decision of Judge Greene, di-
recting that the Assessor "assess all
the right and title, legal or equitable,
of the n. p. II. r. in or to the fol-
lowing described property" etc.
Mr.. Billings did not do it. Why,
is Us much of q mystery as achy he
left the certificate required by law
to give it validity from the assess
ment of 1879. He admits that he
makes mistakes, in his circular, but
how will this plea serve him when a
decision of the court points out the
defects made in former years, when
the Prosecuting Attorney earnestly
enjoins him to comply with the legal
form which will make his assessment
valid, and he deliberately goes on
and makes the same mistake over
again? If, however, we can be SO
charitable as to grant that his men,
DRY could possibly have been quite
faulty, that he forget to obey the in.
timation of the Court and the instruc-
ton of the Attorney, how could be
possibly have committed the same
error again this year, after the Dis
trict Attorney had reported him to
The Grand Jury of the Spring term.
for ceusure, and that body had add.
ed their injunction for him to COM
ply with the forms which wculd
make his acts against the railroad
company legal? To show that We
have not IN any manner done him
injustice, we quote from the record:
Extract from Report Of the Grand Jury, filed
February 10, 1891
- 1.-THE Prosecuting Attorney has
called to our attention the matters con-
teined in his last Annual Report for
Thurston county, and after examining
into the matters therein contained, we
find the same corr ect. The officers there
in have in some things complied with the
recommendations therein contained, hut
not fully. and we, in behalf of the county,
demand that such matters as are therein
contained and not fully acted upon by
such officers, be trithOta delay complied ,cith.
s. w. PERCIVAL,
Foreman Of Grand jury"
The matters contained in the
"last Annual Report of the Prosecu-
ting Attorney" referred to above,
are in the main, set forth in the
following Quotation from that docu-
ment:
Extract from Report of Prosecuting Attorney
of Dec. II, 1871
"I find that by virtue of spec
| ial law page AS Statutes 1874, the Sheriff,
! acting as er cticiO ASST ssor, has filed no
bond as Assessor. The ASSESS
| ment roll does rot comply with Secs 16,
| II. IS, 10 ana 90, pages 1899, Statutes 1877.
No road and school districts are nun bered
in the roll. Again. at times, the lands are
not described. Here follow a dozen or
more quotations from entries on the roll
| and many others are in the same condition,
do not consider the same compliance
with any statute on the subject of assess
ment in force. The same cannot afford
a lien in favor of the county, or purchaser,
at sale or otherwise, and is simply an as
sessment, in my opinion, illegal Insignificant
and good for nothing.
| If You will refer to my letter of the l4tIl
of April, 1879, you will also SEQ that the
assessment of the n. p. X. r. was INSULT.
cient and the instructions therein not
compile with. In view Of new assess
| tuepf I call attention IN Said lattor ,,,d