The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1882-06-02
STAND ny rmn TICKET.

amounted to absut $500. Mr.. Charlton
while collecting these taxes was acting
under the new Law passed in 1880, and
during this tlme drew his salary under
this new law, but after he had collect.
ed these taxes and after he had recelv'
cd his salary. Mr. Charlton concluded
that he would obtain additional oanipen-
sation for his services by forcing ths
County Court to pay him, ever and
above the salary allowed by the now
law, viz $4,000 per annum, the percent
age allowed by the old law on all taxes
collected by him. The following we
copy from the record of Linn County,
vol. 6, pages 52S and 524;
CouSrY CouRr Linn County, Oregon.
June 9th inst, 1881.
IL. j. Charlton VS.. Linn Caunty-Bill
for percentage on taxes for the year
1880 collected in Linn County, Ore
gon, from Jan. 22nd, 1881, to April
9th, 1881.
Now at this day this cause came to
be heard And after argument by
counsel the court finds frsm the claim
itself and from the record of this court
as matter of fact That the said j. j.
Charlton performed the services men,
toned. That between the 22nd day of
Jan. 1891, and the 10Th day of May,
1881, the said J. j. Charlton claimed
Of said County of Linn salary of
$1,000 per annum exclusive of milsge
tor his services as such Sheriff That
said claim of said j. j. Charlton was al
lowed and ordered paid by this Court
and that said ]. J. Charlton accept
ed and received said salary AS full COM
pensation for his services as such Sher
iff under the act of the Legislative
Assembly of the State OF Oregon,
providing for the compensation Of Sher-
IL and Clerk of the Counties of Linn,
Lane, etc, approved Oct. %, 1880,
and that said j. j. Charlton has not
returned or offered 10 return TO said
Linn County said salary nor any part
thereof so received BY him. That the
Slain Of the said j. j. Charlton is has
ed on services rendered BY him between
the 22nd day of Jan, ISL, and the l9ih
day of May, 1881 during which time he
accepted and received salary for his
services as Sheriff As matter ef law
ist l.. TE.A =. H.
taxes Of Linn County said J j Charlton
acted as Sheriff OF Linn County. That
the said ]. J. Charlton having claimed,
received and retained the said salary
as such Sheriff, be is estopped from
claiming and has waived any right he
might have had to the percentage on
which said claim is based. IL il there
fore ordered and adjudged by the Court
hat said claim be and is hereby disal-
| swe1 aEd dismissed.
l.. FINN, County Judge,
LEVI DOUGLAS,
II. CUNSIxaHAM,
| County Commissioners.
Eow it appears from the recorl aud
finding of the County Court taat Dir.
Charlton undertook to draw and receive
pay fer his services under both the Law
of 1880 and the old law repealed by
the new. We have 70 comments TO
make, 10 insiuuationa as to his motives.
Mr.. Charlton was SO determined 10
shis matter that be Immediately appeal
ed from this judgment or finding CT the
County Court but Judge Boise sus-
tanned fully, the above finding Of the
County Court, after which Mr. Charl-
ton Immediately appealed from Judge
Boise's finding to the Supreme Court
of this State. Tie Supreme Court
sustained the judgment and finding Of
Judge Bnise, as we'll as the above find
ing of the County Court While it is
truo that the county was successful in
all this litigation against It's Sheriff it
is also true that tie county was forced
to employ and pay attorneys to appear
and defend, both in the Circuit and
Supreme Courts. The county was
therefore forced to pay for this litiga-
tioA forced upon it by The Sheriff some
thing near $3.50, and this moasy s,
paid out, you the tax payers ara Gem
pelied to raise from your hard earnings.
Mr. Charlton two years ago promised
us that be would abide by whatever
the legislature saw proper to do in re-
gard to the fees of Sheriff in this county.
We submit TO the honest voters and
taxpayers Of Linn whe Their or not he
has acted in good faith. We give you
the record of the County Court
for Your inspection and ask you to de-
eide for yourselves on tlis matter. We
do not desire to misrepresent any one,
not even candidate Ct the opposite
party. Let the voters have tho facts
and Judge for themselves. It is not for
us to say that Mr. Charlton is guilty of
double dealing or that he is dishonest or
unfaithful to his trust. 1t is also claim
cd aud asserted by those who claim to
know that Sheriff Charlton contributed
money for ths purpose of helping to
pay the attorneys who succeeded in up
.sast;,,e, n no, 1au 6v;pf, tba salarv