Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1880-09-24

maligner of Gen. Garfield, has been for
six years aud now is engaged.
FRANK HURD'S 5 SALARY GRAB"
In April, 1870, Mr.. Hurd was elected
City Solicitor for Toledo, with salary
of 50 900. The duties Of the Office were
by no means onerous, but left more OF
less of time for attention TO otner
professional business by the incumbent.
Mr.. Hurd was a member of the law
firm of Scribner & Hurd, and as such
continued in more or less active par.
ticipation in its business. The salary
affixed to the Office was accepted by
that gentleman, as it was by his pre-.
decessors, as ample for the services to
be rendered.
Itseems, however, ,thatnot a great while
after taking the office of Solicitor, Mr.
Hurd found it to be more of an encurn-
brance upon his time than he cared tc
have, and with the view of freeing him.
self from such embarrassment, he ap-
piled to the City Council for the ap'
pointment of an Assistant Solicitor
who should relieve him, as occasion
should occur, and who should, while
doing 30, receive the regular salary, il
being distinctly understood in the ar
rangement, that but one salary should
be paid for the services of the two Of
fcers. This plan, thus adopted at Mr.
Hurd's suggestion and for his benefit, was
continued from the time of its inaugu.
ration until September l, 1874. The
meantime Mr.. Hurd had dpassed through
one campaign as candidate for Congress,
lin 1922 and had nearly completed a
second one. He had, beside such en-.
gagement, spent much Of his time away
from the city on private business, sub
stantially surrendering the Solicitors
duties to the Assistant, B. W. Rouse,
Esq who was virtually the Solicitor,
There was no complaint of all this, be-
cause all parties were satisfied that the
city was being as well served by the AS
sistant, as it would have been by the
Solicitor.
But in the course Of time it began tC
be known that the arrangement made
with Mr.. Hurd was not kept by him
that instead of turning over his salary
to his assistant, as provided for in the
agreement, he had demanded full pay
from the very first, without abatement
of day for his own habitual and almost
entire neglect of official duties. And
not only this, but upon an investigation
of the matter in September, 1S74-Mr.
Hurd then being for second time a
candidate for Congress-it was found
that the expense account OF the city
for legal services between the 10th o
April, 1870, and the 1st Of September,
1874, stood as follows:
Frank Fl. Hurd, City Solicitor......s 7,OO4 90
B. W. Rouse, Assistant Solicitor. 3,642 rs
@. W. Hill, legal services.""........ 1886 90
Charles Kent, do ............ 400 90
@. H. Scribner do .............. 200 90
Bissell, Gleason 4 Co., abstracts
utle) ............................. l4O W
]. G. Brown, (Clerk to Solicitor)... CSC 81
$l2.4lO 25
The entire period covered by the
above expenses, was 40 23 months
The salary of Solicitor for that time at
$1,000 per year, was 1918 so, which,
manifestly, was the sum which the
city justly should have paid between
April 10, 1870, and Sept. l, 1874. But
instead of this, we find an aggregate Of
sl2,4l0 %, or s5,694 75 more than the
amount for which Mr.. Hurd stipulated
to perform TIE service, showing an in
crease OF As per cent. And not only
this, but it will be seen that Mr.. Hurd's
bills not only covered the entire period,
without deduction OF a day for months
OF continued absence from the city, but
also for 1927 80 OF double pay. That is
to say, he got in 40 days more time
that any almanac-maker had been able
to find.
1t is no doubt true that a small por-
ton OF the extra legal service above Civ
en-, was just and proper, and particular
ly that in cases originating before Mr.,
Hurd came into office; but this fact can
in no way justify an expenditure OF
S. 634 70, or As per cent, beyond the
Solicitors salary. Nothing can justify
Mr.. Hurd's demand for the So 642.75
for services performed by the Assistant
Solicitor appointed at this request, and
whose pay, as distinctly understood,
was to be taken from Mr.. Hurd's salary.
No extent OF explanation or sophistry
can dispose OF that damaging fact. The
only attempt yet made to explain the
matter consists in the claim that the
salary was not adequate to the duties OF
the office. AS matter Of fact, 1t may
be stated, that the pay was tloice that
averaged by other members of the Bar
for legal services, and was such that
Mr.. Hurd was very anxious to obtain
and hold the place until he was seized
with aspirations for Congress, to the
promotion of which was largely devoted
the years OF time for which he regularly
drew full salary as Solicitor, while the
taxpayers OF the city were paying
others for doing his work. This telling
fact nothing can wipe out or evade.
With the foregoing statement Of facts,
it will be entirely safe to leave II to the
voters of the Sixth Congressional Dis
trict to say to whom Mr.. Hurd's "No
Credit Mobilier" and mo Salery Grab"
banner best applies.