Los Angeles herald., 1892-11-06

| paid to that hrm, ana 10 one OF IN
items which Mr.. McLachlan 30 vigor
ously repudiates as being special counse
for his Office. If Mr.. McLachlsn take
to himself the credit of this judgment
surely, in fairness to Messrs. H. s. & G.
they shonld have some small credit TO
fighting the case through and putting i
into judgment go that all the distric
attorney would have to do would be tt
receive the money. If that is done
their compensation must be charged al
special counsel for the district attorney
But my opponent is not 30 disposed, TO
he assures the people that this none,
"was recovered and paid into the treas
ury during my administration, leaving
it to be assumed by his hearers that ht
alone performed the labor in the case
Is not this plain case of misrepresent
fact that in Mr.. McLachlan's speech he
assures the people that no outside as
sistance was given him. Is his state
ment true?
l give as follows certified copy of 9
minute order made by the board o.
supervisors Of this county January 30
1891:
Book xii page 23s.
FRIDAY, Jan. 80, 1891.
In re court house-On motion OF Super
visor Davis the chairman was appointed
a committee of one to secure counsel and
ascertain all the facts regarding claims
upon the court house property.
l, T. H. Ward, county clerk and ex-
officio clerk of the board of supervisors
of Los Angeles county, California, do
hereby certify the foregoing to be full,
true and correct copy of the minute entry
of the proceedings of the board OF super
visors as appears of record Friday, jan
uary 80, 1891.
[sEAL T. H. WARD,
County clerk and ex-officio clerk of the
board of supervisors.
By HENRY s. KNAPP, Deputy.
On October 2, 1891. Messrs. Houghton,
Silent and Campbell filed bill, No. 9l2,
book A, page 1872. allowance for the sum
of $500. This was fee for services in
relation to title of the new court house,
and the same was allowed December 5,
1891. The connection between this
claim and the minute order above men
toned is obvious when it is remembered
that it is the only claim allowed for such
service since the date of the minute order
above given. This was another of the
nine items.
On April 8, 1891, Stephen M. White
filed bill, No. 2428, book vii, page 378,
allowances, in the sum of $3.50. The
items of the bill are as follows:
1881, March 31st. Services rendered
the county as an attorney, in preparing
ordinances, giving advice, drawing
orders, and generally assisting the dis
trict attorney of said county in the mat
ter of the issuance of bonds issued pur-
suant to an election held in said county
June, 1890; and also for services in pre-
pairing and giving opinion upon which
bonds have been sold.
80. X. JAMES McLAoHLAN.
''District Attorney"
Will it be disputed by any fair minded
man that part of these services were
rendered as special counsel in assisting
the present district attorney? think
not.
l do not deem it necessary to go fur
ther into details in this particular mat
ter. 1t seems to me that these items
are properly chargeable to Mr.. McLach-
Ian, he having received the benefit
thereof in the conduct of his office; and,
certainly, his statement that mot dol
lar had been paid to assist me in any
way" falls to the ground. 1t will not
do to 60 before the people and say that
he has performed certain services In re.
covering money for the county when
those services are rendered by attorneys
other than himself.
AN $4,000 OFFICE.
The gentleman cannot understand
where the $4,000 comes from which 1
have claimed is the cost of conducting
his Office for 1891. The account will be
found on pages 10 to 2S OF the auditors
report, 1891, viz:
Salaries and incidentals. s...........$ $15 1892. 10
Add special counsel l............... 2,5z8 SO
Total. ........ observation-disclosures $1S ,36l.O
Let us look at the pay rolls for May,
1892, which would be fair sample of
the amounts paid out monthly on be-
half OF that office for the present year.
We find salaries as follows:
Assistant district attorney ey........... 5000 90
Ol Cniei uepu'y .''.'. ....'..... I63 W
Three IDENTITIES at Sloo each a0S a0S M M
One deputy sheriff for district attorney 100 90
Laiafy OF district attorney ............. 300 90
And among the list of claims allowed
at the June meeting OF the board OF
supervisors for the month of May, we
find:
One stenographer for district attor-
For service as detective in case Of ii"
Mary Martin. ...............,... 1856 10
Total. ST. ,476 10
Add to this cost of stationery, rail
road fare and livery hire, necessarily
by the district attorneys
Office in the conduct of his business,
and it will swell the amount to more
than $500 for the month of May, 1892.
There is no special counsel in this.
The pay roll for June of this year and
the claim for services rendered the dis.
trict attorneys Office for that month,
will bring the amount to within 81 10 of
the May expenses. A little multiplica-
tion will give the gentleman, as the ex-
penses for this year, the required
SIS, 5000, viz; 12x $500.
HIS FAITHFUL RETAINERs.
While on this particular point, 1
notice that my opponent claims to be
acting under the law of 1891. How is
this? He was elected and draws his
salary under the law of 1889, but ap-
points his deputies under the law of
1891, which went into effect March
30th of that year, and was passed after
Mr.. McLachlsn was elected, and after
he entered upon the duties OF his office.
The highest salary allowed a deputy
under the law of 1889 is $166 66, and
with the provision that other deputies
might be appointed at a salary not to
exceed $133 33 each. But the law of
1891 provides for an assistant at salary
of 5000; chief deputy at $175; a deputy