Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1891-06-17
THOSE WARRANT CASES.
They Were Not Decided By Judge
Stockslaser, a. They Practically "De.
ctded 1hpmselves, On their FACE.

Tho TINES has had the action in
the warrant cases in Logan county
looked into. and tho folio wing facts
have been adduced:
During the last session Of the Leg
islature the Board OF Commissioners
Of Logan county issued between
5000 and $1,000 worth of warrants
which were publicly attacked as hav.
ing been issued for lobbying purposes.
Broner & Parsons we're th+reupon re.
tanned to contest their validity.
These gentlemen brought separate
actions to have the warrants annulled.
Altogether some six or eight such
actions were begun. But these were
original actions, begun in the District
Court. The aim Of the attorneys was
to appeal from the orders Of the com.
missioners in the case. But they did
not appeal. They brought original &C.
tions instead.
The cases came up before Judge
StocksIaRer, but only two were tried.
The 6rst was for = warrant of $500
issued to Arthur Brown, for prepar-
ing . brief on the unconstit tionslity
Of the Alta Lincoln bill. This war.
rant was perfectly, entirely, undispu.
tably legal. The reason for contest
ing it is not apparent. If Messrs.
Bruner 4 Parsons really meant to at
tack it there was one ground upon
which they could have done SO, and
that would be that the amount allow
ed (s5OO) Was unnecessarily large for
the services rendered. 1t does not
appear that they did this; nor that
they offered \ scintilla OF evidence in
that direction. As Nj. Parsons, who
was engaged on the other side, in the
same case IS Mr.. Brown, expected to
receive $1,000 for his services from
Alta county, he certainly could not be
to argue that Arthur Brown,
who 10 q much ADLER attorney, was
net entitled to $500 for appearing in
a case wherein he (Pxrsons) was
charging $1,000.
Judge Stockslager therefore had no
decision to make. There was really
no contest before him IN this matter.
Now for case No. 2. This was for
issued to Mrs. Cellicr, for
money borrowed ito pay counsel fees"
and work to he performed at Boise
City. in influencing the Legislature.
H. re again are the damnable 'coun>
'el fecs." "Counsel fees" are respon-
'ibls for fully one half Of the present
e4OO, OC0.odd Indebtedness OF al.
:uras county.
The warrants were not issued for
hat alone. Besides "counsel fees"
hey were also issued for work to
70 done in Boise City to influence the
Legislature"
The counsel fees" are indisputa.
Die. lawful. The lobbying work is
unlawful, illegal, and not to be paid
or. But how much Was for counsel
ees, and how much for LOBBYING?
That Messrs. Bruner & Parsons did
not show. There is no record of
my evidence having been offered by
Them in this case, either. And here
again it is possible that the counsel,
rs they had already received money
rom Alturas as "counsel fees" aud as
hey hoped and expected to get more,
lid not feel like making . very hard
light. How could they? How could
my man, in their circumstances?
In this, as in the FIRST case, Judge
Stockslag.r had no decision to make.
He was compelled to order judgmen.
in favor Of the warrants. The other
Eases were not before the court
Bruner & Parsons threatened to ap-
zeal to the Supreme Court. But that
s the sheerest nonsense. The cases
we're not properly begun in the frst
Instance; they were lost 40 initio-
rom the stsrt-and no court in tn.
world could have maintained them.
The only procedure open to the
axpa, ers that we sea is to begin de
'ovo. and. probably by asking for an
rider enjoining the Treasurer Of Lo-
,an county from paying those war;
ants. That ofiicial-or the parties in