Los Angeles herald., 1892-07-11
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
And His Manner of Conducting
Public Business.
A Few Remarks Concerning the Rail.
road Taxes,
which show That Mr. McLachIan's Al
legged Defense Is No Defense at All.
Inexcusable Delays for which
He Is Responsible.

just to any man, whether he be pr
vate citizen or a public officer. As
public officer no man has anything t
fear from this or any other paper tha
is conducted on honest and uprigh
principles, unless his own conduct call
for notice and censure. When a mar
becomes public officer, the public gen
orally are interested in, and have tn,
right to closely scan his official acts ant
hence it happens that acts on the par
of public officers are commented on il
this paper simply because they are tn,
acts of public officer, and which, but
for their public nature, would never
have appeared in print. If, for in
stance, an attorney neglects the business
of his private clients, and thereby causes
them great loss and inconvenience
this paper let's the matter alone
and leaves the attorney to settle with
his victims without giving the matter
publicity, but if that attorney is the law
officer of the one hundred thousand
| people of this county, it is quite diff
| ferent matter, and justice demands that
his shortcomings be exposed; and it is
| right that they should be censured and
| 80 long as he is fairly dealt with he has
no right to complain. Some days ago
an article appeared in this paper CEN
suring the district attorneys conduct
| in the tax suits against the Southern
Pacific railroad company. The day fol-
lowing the appearance of the article re-
ferred TO the HERALD commented on
the misfortune of the county losing so
large sum through the carelessness of
Mr.. McLachlin. In the Times Mr.. Nc
Lachlin came out with a lengthy article
which he probably intends to be
in self defense and complete
answer to the articles that have
appeare in the HERALD. Mr.. McLach-
Ian Gays:
The assessment of the property
OF railroads operated in more than
one county of this state was made by
the state board of equalization as pro-
vided by the political code for the year
1887. A tax was duly levied for state
and county purposes and an action was
brought to collect the same in the SUI
perior court of the city and county OF
San Francisco by the said controller,
through the attorney general. The judg-
ment went against the people. An
appeal was taken to the Supreme court
from the decision of the Superior court,
on March 8, 1890, and the Supreme
court affirmed the judgment of the
said Superior court. holding, among
other things, that an action could not be
maintained by the state to collect the
state and county taxes in one action,
and that action should be brought in
the name of the real party in interest
Chief Justice Beatty and Justice Thorn
ton dissenting.
/ assumed the duties of my office on
the 5th day of January, 1891. Some
time about the middle of January of said
year | received circular letter from
Attorney General Hart, addressed to the
district attorneys of the state, calling my
attention to said decision of the supreme
court, which lie entitled People We. Cen.
tral Pacific Railroad company, and re-
ported in the Eighty-third California
at page 1893, advising that action be
commenced by the several counties
against the railroad companies which
had not paid the taxes upon the
assessments of the state board of
equalization for the year 1887, and ad-
vising me to file such complaints on or
before the first Monday of February,
1891. Immediately caused an exam
ination to be made to ascertain what
taxes were due the county of Los An
geles, levied upon that assessment, and
had the actions commenced as soon as
practicable, to-wit, on the 22d day of
January. 1891. The defendants ap-
peared by their attorneys and demurred
to the complaints, pleading the statute
OF limitations. The demurrers came on
for argument before Judge Wade, of our
superior court. in the spring of 1891.
The defendants requested leave of
the court to file a brief. Such
leave was granted, and I filed reply,
brief to brief, of defendants, about
July l., 1891. The attorney-genera
asked for time to file brief in reply to
defendants, and obtained from defend
ants stipulations giving him until April.
1892, in which to file such brief. The
defendants counsel fled reply blief,
and on the 9th day OF June last the de-
murrers to those cases were overruled,
the court holding that the said actions
could be commenced at any time within
five years after the taxes became delin-
quent The defendants were thereupon
granted thirty days in which to answer,
which time has been since extended by
order of the court, and the answers of
defendants have not yet been filed.
Let US see how far the above is de-
fense. Mr.. McLachlan was elected dis
trict attorney of Los Angeles county on
the 4th day of November, 1890, and
from that date until January 5, 1891,
had ample opportunity to ascertain the
condition of the legal business of the
county, it was certainly his duty to
know what would be required of him.
The vast interests of Los Angeles county
demand that we have acompetent, capa-
BILE and energetic lawyer in the office of
district attorney. and if Mr.. McLachlan
had been that kind of lawyer he
would have ascertained the condition of
the county's legal business and
been ready to act on the
day his duties began. The decision in
the SO California reports referred to by
Mr.. McLachlan was rendered ten months
before he took Office. Had he been q
competent lawyer, practicing as he is in
this state, he would have known all
about the decision in the 83 California,
and it would not have been necessary
for the attorney-general to call his at
tention to it and suggest to him that he
begin suit for this county's portion of
said tax. 1t is fair to presume that if
the encouragement had not urged
Mr.. McLachlan to begin suit, the COM
plant in the case would not vet have
| been filed. Just here we wish to call
! public attention to the manner in which
L l. Ill