Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1886-01-12

District Attorney Cheney Makes n
Statement Concerning Reports Ite-
necttng On Late Official Actions OF

hecstuS on hSnsc VhACA"h
HIS.
EUREKA. New, January IL. 1886.
EDrroR SESTrSEL: I desire the public
TO know the facts concerning certain re-
ports rejecting on my Official action as
District Attorney, which reports were
stated OF a special meeting Of the Board OF
County Commissioners in my absence.
/ have never as District Attorney ad-
vised the Commissioners to pay the Skill
man Judgment against the county, or said
that there is no defense against 1t. The
facts are these: In 1884 the SENTINEL and
Leader did certain public printing for che
county. Each paper charged the same
price. The proprietors Of each paper
presented their bills to the Commissioners.
and they were rejected. For the purpose
OF having ono suit instead Of two, the pro-
p~rietors Of the Leader assigned their
claim to Mr.. Skillman. and the action was
brought in his pame for the Amount Of
both claims by Wren 4 Cheney AZ attor-
neys. I understand Mr.. Skillman never
has had and does not now claim any in
terest in the leaders bill. The last Board
OF COMMISSIONER ordered Mr.. CARRIER,
then District Attorney. to appear for the
county 10 this action. He did appear aud
the case was tried in November, 1884, be-.
fore Judge Rives and a Judgment rem
dered in favor OF Mr.. Skillman on both
claims, which Judgment, with interest
and costs, now amounts to about 81 500.
Some simo since Mr.. Skillmsn proposed,
la order to avoid further litigation. to
compromise and settle the whole matter.
but { understand negotiations were broken
of by Mr.. Sadler, claiming to represent
the Leader interest. notifying Mr.. Skill
man that be would be held liable for the
full amount OF the Leader claim. At the
last regular meeting Of the Board Mr..
Skillman offered to take $3.50 in settlement
Of his half Of the Judgment. being q re-
duction OF $500 from what the judgment
called for. MY position in the case has
never been concealed from anyone, and
was then explained to the Board. With
this knowledge the Board inquired what l
thought about the matter. l replied. In
substance. that il appeared to me more 9
matter Of policy than law as far as the
Board were concerned at that time. aad
that the question was for them to deter
mine whether it was better to pay $3.50 In
settlement of u $3.50 judgment or litigate
the case. know but little about the evi.
dence OF the case, as I was not present
when the case was tried, but Judge Rives
considered IL sufficient TO warrant the judg.
ment. ! am not prepared to say positively
whether there 10 or 10 not . good defense 30
this judgment. This judgment was OBJ.
tanned before I Was District Attorney.
which accounts for my appearing on the
record "a attorney for the plaintiff. II
thore 10 further litigation II 10 not only
proper but eminently satisfactory to me
thai some one else should represent the
county. but I regret that IL should be
thought necessary to resort TO either
secrecy or o misstatement OF my actions In
order 10 accomplish that end.
II IL reported that / have charged un-
lawful fees. This / deny. At the last
term OF the District Court three persons
were separately indicted for 8 felony. for
having Violated the Opium law. Two were
tried by a jury aud found guilty. AZ
charged In the Indictment" The other
plead guilty, as charged in the indictments.
They were In each case convicted OF the
offense for which they were indicted, and
they were each indicted for . felony.
Section 2946 of the Compiled Laws pro-
vides: 1.-The District Attorney, in addi-
ton to the yearly salary allowed by law,
shall receive tho following fees: For each
conviction in capital CAGES. the sum OF one
hundred dollars; on conviction OF any
other felony. fifty dollars" etc. Where
the conviction 10 for q m~isdemeanor / get
nothing from the county. Tho Opium
Act provides that q person violating its
provisions shall. "on legal conviction, be
punished by q fine not exceeding one thou
sand dollars or by imprisonment moi ex-
ceeding two years, or by both such fine
and imprisonment, as the Court shall
judge, and if such imprisonment shall be
for o period exceeding six months. the
same shall be in the States Prison." In
these cases the Court saw fit to sentence
the defendant TO pay q fine or be impris-
oned in the County Jsil. A person must
be convicted before he can be punished.
but the sentence Of punishment forms no
part Of the conviction. 1t is what results
from the conviction but constitutes on part
Of 1t, and is q matter with which the Dis
trict Attorney has nothing to do. The
juries in these cases convicted the defend.
ants OF q felony. because they were
charged by the indictments with commit.
ting q felony, and the verdicts were
guilty as charged Ia the Indictment"
The conviction IL determined by the jury;
the punishment or sentence is declared by
the Court. The Supreme Court Of Cali.
fornia has held that there may be a convic-
ton without sentence or judgment. I be-
lieve the rule In this State to-day 10 the
came az II was in Blackstone's time: But
if the jury find him guilty, he is then said
to be convicted Of the crime whereof he
stands indicted" A moments reflection
will convince that il il for the efforts OF 3
District Attorney in securing u verdict OF
conviction from the jury that he is gran ted
additional pay, and not for inducing the
Court to make the punishment severe. l
do not believe 1t will be commended by
any iair-minded person that the District
Attorney il to be deprived Of HE com
pensasion for his work simply because the
Court, after his labor has been performed,
q verdict OF conviction obtained and his
duties in the case ended. sees fit to sen.
tence the defendant to the County Jail in-
stead OF to tho States Prison. 1t is not
just or right that his claim for compensa-
tion should depend upon the leniency which
the Court extends to the prisoner. after
the services have been fully and success