The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1891-10-10
THE BARNARD BROWN CASE.

upon the part Of the commissioners Of
Choteau county, which finally culmi-
mated in an appeal suit that was recent
ly decided against them in the tenth
judicial court Of the state. The case is
an important one as the final decision
will measure the power Of commission
ers in the matter Of awarding contracts.
As the taxpayers Of Cascade county
may yet be compelled to protest in a
court of equity against the squandering
Of their money by bitterly partisan, reck-
less commissioners the TRIBUNE will
briefly give the points in the now some
what famous Choteau county case, gen.
orally known down there as the Bernard
Brown warrant case, as cause for longer
silence has disappeared.
About a year ago the commissioners
Of Choteau county, who by the way are
republicans, concluded that the county
records needed an overhauling. Or to
put it more plainly they wanted an in
vestigation of the books of two or the
county officers. 1t may be stated here
that no charges Of official corruption or
crookedness had been made against the
officials, not even a whisper had been
uttered against their conduct and man.
agement Of their respective offices. But
the commissioners or rather one or two
of their political friends, wanted the two
gentlemen investigated, and as a majority
of the board sneezed when their reputed
owners and advisers took snuff an order
was entered that the investigation
should take place.
The next thing to be done was to find
an expert to do the business. Excellent
accountants were to be had in Fort Ben
ton but a Fort Benton expert was not
billed on the programme. He lived at
Helena and a Helena man was employed.
His name, Bernard Brown. 1t is not
shown by the commissioner records in
Choteau county that any contract was
made between Mr.. Brown and
the commissioners for exporting
work nor do the records show
that any certain sum of money was to be
paid for it. 1t is presumed. however,
the parties to the comprehend contract
had a little talk "just around the cor
ner" and a bargain struck. At all
events Mr. Brown sent a couple of gen.
tlemen down who were supposed to know
something about addition, division, and
silence" and for a few days the smell of
books grown gray and musty with age
pervaded the court house in the quiet
little village down on the river. Records
which had been exported and some of
them re-experted were brought to light
and closely scanned by the eagle-eyed
accountants. A mass of figures was
fired into a few sheets of paper and the
experts shook the adobe of the town
from their sandals and HE'D away to
Helena.
Then came a long, weary waiting for
the expert report. AS death and taxes
come to the watchful and the un-
watchful alike so came the all-important
document to Fort Benton. After being
submitted to the private inspection of a
couple OF the commissioners in a locked
of a hotel it was taken back to
Helena for alteration and revision. An
other weary waiting and the precious
document was returned and publicly ex-
in the Office of the clerk and re-
corder for Choteau county. There the
thing itself was investigated by experts
who can give Mr.. Barnard Brown and
his assistants a world of valuable point.
ers in accounting and in computing num-
bers. The result of the investigation
was the discovery Of about one hundred
errors in Mr.. Browns expert report.
These errors were shown and proved to
exist. Yet Notwithstanding their pres
ence and the plainly evident worthless
ness of the report, and the protests OF
taxpayers of Choteau county, the COM
missioners allowed Mr.. Browns bill OF
81, 100 for his work. and a warrant was
drawn for the amount.
That, however, didn't end the matter.
Inc taxpayers OF ChOteau county feel
ing that they had rights which an AFRO
giant and high handed board of commits
sioners could not tread upon or ignore
appealed, through a representative, from
the action of the board. The following
is the decision in the case as reported in
the River Press:
In the Tenth Judicial District Court
of the State of Montana, in and for the
County of Choteau.
William II. Todd, appellant, vs.. the
Board of Commissioners of Choteau
county, Montana, respondent.
In this action William II. Todd, who is
taxpayer of said Choteau county, having
regularly prosecuted an appeal under the
statute in such case made and provided
from the action of the Board of Commits
Of said county Of Choteau, in al
lowing at their June, 1891, meeting the
claim of one Barnard Brown in the sum