Arizona republican., 1891-06-27
THE CASE OF MIR. WILLIAMS.

Our morning contemporary, the Ga zetts, charged us recently with partisan ship, or something of the kind, for speaking disparagingly of the ability of attorney Williams, acting Deputy Dis trict Attorney. The Gazette was wrong. THE REPUBLICAN bears no man animos- ity. It loves it's neighbor as itself (22d Chap. Exodus.) Yesterday Mir. Will Hams appeared in court as plaintiff in a suit, in which the county is defendant, claiming the sum of $325 for services rendered. Dismissing until another time the proposition as to whether Mir. Williams services were worth s325, or whether they were worth anything, or if they were not detrimental to the county, there is still peculiar color to the case.
 District Attorney Frank Cox and NJ. H. Williams are law partners. Mir CoI's draws as District Attorney the handsome sum of $25O0 per annum. annum. If MT. Cox gets half as part ner his remuneration runs up to S3l25. Mir. Cox was not only able at this term of court to attend to all the criminal business, but also found time to take charge of a number of civil cases for private parties. In no other county in the Territory is a Deputy District At torney paid out of the public funds, yet in Pima and Yavapai the District Attor- feys have nearly twice as much to do as in Maricopa, and the compensation is the same. Even so eminent legal talent as the Attorney General of the Territory receives only 5000 per an- nun. Mir. Cox had quite as much work on hand before appointing his assistant as now. Indeed, it is fact generally observed, and pointed to with pride" by our citizens, that crime has decreased in the county the past three years 25 per cent. Then Mir. Cox had both the ability and time to attend to the coun- tvs work without assistance, or, if re- quired, paid for it out of his own ample and sufficient salary.
 What became of Williams claim during the last campaign? It was pre- sented to the Democratic Board of Supervisors, who had audited his pre- vious bills with quickness and dispatch. This bill was handed up in June, but, unfortunately for Williams and lucky for the taxpayers, the campaign was running and Hon. Webster Street at tackled its validity. The result was that the board, District Attorney and Assist ant conjointly agreed to hypnotize the thing tIll after election, when it was again presented-this time to Repub- lican board who were seeking to econo- mically administer the county affairs and promptly disallowed. In some cases in which claims for fees are pre- sented by Mir. Williams, the District Attorney was in court representing the Territory, while the defendant was being represented by some neophyte or ledgling appointed by the Court.
 An amusing part of the proceedings was the attempt on the part of Assist ant Williams to represent both the plaintiff and defense in the case. When this coarse work developed itself the Judge struck the answer from the files and allowed MT. Humphries, who was counsel for the county, to file new answer, raising the issues in the case on it's merits. The Courts statement that such thing as an attorney representing both sides of the case was Unprecedented and un- heard of," was probably not flattering to the obtuse but persistent legal light. The taxpayers of Maricopa county are not in the mood to be mulcted and it is time that they were being kept posted.