Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-10-03
TIE SUPERVISORS VERSUS LAW, PUEBLO
OPINION. AND COMMON SENSE.

The course of the majority of the Super.
visors of this county, in plunging the
county into litigation with the miners tor
no other apparent purpose than to give tat
fees to Mr.. George Cadwalader. is con-
demned by public opinion Throughout the
county in the most emphatic way. The
feeble and incoherent attempts which have
been made to hoodwink the community by
telling them that multiplicity Of suits is
in some mysterious and utterly incompre-
hensible way necessary to the obtaining of
judicial decision, have not deceived any,
body. The clear and incontrovertible fact
that the decision of one suit must settle
the whole question, cannot be concealed or
evaded, and the more the matter il dis.
cussed the palmer does it appear that no
justification existed for the action taken by
the majority of the Board in the premises.
The Supervisors who have thus undertaken
to defy public opinion, and to coerce the
public into paying thousands of dollars for
wholly unnecessary and absolutely use
less litigation, appear to have thought also
that the laws of the State were not made
for them, and that they had a perfect right
TO override those laws at their own sweet
will. We do not know whether the lawyer
in whose sole interest this most improper
and unpopular action was taken, contrived,
at the secret meeting with the Board
which has attained so disagreeable no.
toriety, to cast spell over the minds of
i the four members who have ever since
emed to be rather his servants than
the county's; but it certainly is not easy
to account for the singular obstinacy with
which they have persisted in following out
programme SO totally indefensible, and SO
hagrantly antagonistic to the interests OF
the people of the county.
But it is still more difficult to under
stand how these four Supervisors could
have persuaded themselves that they pos
sessed the right to make away with the
public funds as they have endeavored to
do, when the law plainly and fatty de-
clares that no such action as they have
taken is permissible. Section 1910 of the
Political Code, treating of the powers and
restrictions of Boards of County Super
visors, provides that "the Board must not
q for any purpose contract debts or liabil-
''ities, except in pursuance of law or IN
"der ordinances of their own, adopted in
accordance with the powers herein
conferred and whenever debts and liabi
ties haze been created aohich, added to the
salaries Of county officers, and other
estimated liabilities .fred By lao for the
remainder Of the gear, equal IN the az
"gregate the revenues Of the county for
"cuJrent expenses, no further allowance of
Hony accounts must be made" The pro-
vision we have placed in italic applies to the
precise situation in which the Board of
Supervisors found itself at the time when
it undertook to iRaugurate this costly and
useless litigation. There was no fund upon
which it could draw. Il had exhausted
the current revenues for the year, and the
law prohibited the allowance of any further
accounts and the creation of any further
liabilities. Bat the Supervisors evidently
considered themselves above the law, and
so they coolly proceeded to honor Mr..
Cadwalader's demands, and would, if they
could, have paid the coin down on the
spot, without the least regard to the Illegal
ity of their action.
Such things have occasionally been done
before, but always hitherto under the pre-
text of some urgent public necessity. It
has been left for cur Supervisors to break
the law for the bad purpose of defying the
wishes of the community. They had no
excuse whatever for entering upon this lit
igation, and in fact they were forbidden by
law to contract the liability involved. The
whole affair was patent and notorious
job. 1t was an attempt to take money out
of the pockets Of the taxpayers, not fer
public use, not to do what could not have
been done in any other way, but in order
to swell the gains OF an attorney who was
already fully retained to try this very issue,
and who was under obligations to do his
best without any reference to this county.
As to the nonsense that has been talked
about the necessity for number of suits,
we have scarcely patience to deal with it.
The whole argument is on its face neither
more nor less than piece of fimsy special
pleading, having for its one object the en-
richment of Mr.. Caiwalader. There is
not and never has been the least necessity
for any such multiplication of suits. The
whole issue will unquestionably be decided
by one suit. The pretense that the Su-
preme Court will be more likely to do JUS
tice if a great number of suits are com.
menced, is not only ridiculous, but involves
gross insult to the bench. 1t implies the
hbelous theory that the Court can be bull
dozad, or that it is more likely to do JUS
tice for a crowd than for an individual.
1t further implies the propriety of at
tempts to bulldose the Court, and this is
both foolish and disgraceiul
But none of these imbecilities have been
successful. The public see plainly that
there can be no need for multiplicity of
suits, and that in fact nobody but the law
yers can derive any benefit from such
policy. They see quite as clearly that the
Supervisors have in this whole business
been working against the clearest public
interest, and in behalf of the attorney who
has made the multiplication of suits land
feesl his special object. They realize that
no more wanton and indefensible squander-
ing of the public funds has ever been
attempted than this litigation involves,
and that no decent apology for it either
has been or can be advanced. They will
now understand further that the Super
visors have been trying to give away
money which they had no authority to
touch; that they have been doing their
best to create liabilities which the law pro-
hibits them from mourning. And thus it