Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1893-06-29
THOSE ATTORNEYS FEES.


All has not yet been said on the sub
ject of those attorneys fees. The COM
missioners meet Monday, and they
should have all the data possible before
acting.
Just suppose, for the sake of the argu-
ment from the attorneys point of view,
that they are-and the treasurer, clerk
and auditor are. not-entitled to put into
their pockets fees coming into the Office,
how do they explain this little condition
of affairs? The report of Ex-Attorney
Pearson shows 2,732.55 total collected
in cash, from which he deducted 1920 for
fees in cases settled by the delinquent
tax payers paying cash. He also de-
Quoted $46S of hard cash for his fees on
land sold to the county, and fol which
the county got never cent Of cash. At
torney schofield's report shows total of
81, 1O0.66 collected in cash, and he. as did
Pearson, deducted $6520O for. fees
in cases that were settled by the tax
payers coming up with hard coin; and
he deducted from the remaining cash, as
his fees, $4453.00, turning. over to the
county $1995.66, notwithstanding the fact
that never cent had been paid into the
county on those cases for which he re-
tains in cash the $4453.OO as fees.
Now, the question is this, and it is an
insistent one that the commissioners and
the people will not ignore: Granting, for
the arguments sake, that the county at
torney is entitled to fee in each delin-
quent tax case, how can he retain the
cash obtained in the settlement of one
case for his fee in a case in which no cash
at all has ever been paid? If entitled to
retain any fee at all-which we do not
believe he is-would he not be compelled
to wait for his fees until those particular
cases were settled by the delinquents pay
ing up? Or, else, should he not present
his bill for services to the county commits
sioners, and have warrant allowed on
the general fund for it, instead of
taking it out OF the cash collected from
delinquents who have paid up in other
cases? This is, we think, what makes
the case of Chehalis county different
from that OF any other case now in the
courts, and which renders it absolutely
necessary to be passed upon by the court
of last resort,
Think for minute where such a con-
dition Of affairs leaves the people! Take
the case Of Schofeld-the case of Pearson
is the same, with the amounts dimin-
ished: After deducting his 1862 in those
cases that were settled by the delinquents
paying up, there remained in his hands
$6448.66, which it would have been an
easy matter for the county treasurer to APP
portion or segregate, as the law requires,
to the state fund, the military fund, state
interest fund, county fund, fifty-fve
school districts, thirty-six road and bridge
districts, veteran soldiers relief fund, and
the special levies of twenty school dis
tricts. But after the attorney has de-
Quoted from this cash collected on partic-
ular pieces Of land in particular parts of
the county $4453 to pay his fees in suits
on other parcels Of land in other parts of
the county, the problem as to how the
county treasurer shall properly apportion
the $l995.6 that is left is a problem that
locates that officer, with vengeance, be-
tween the devil and the deep sea.
There is one other point to consider,
and it is point made by Ex-Attorney
Pearson in his open letter to the board OF
county commissioners. He says:
'sNo, gentlemen, if the prosecuting at
torney is not entitled to the fee on ac-
count OF extra work and labor imposed
upon him in the collection of ten years
delinquent taxes, the county should not
be, but the fees should go back to the
parties who paid them, for they have
paid the county all that was due it, and
the counsel fee is extra"
Can it be that the ex-county attorney
meant that "the.dear people" should take
this seriously?
Does he believe it?
( AS. the ex-county attorney, can he be
guilty of such ignorance as to suppose
such a thing is even possible, let alone
right? Does he not know that the 1858,
retained by him as fees, was retained as
fees In cases where the land was sold to
the county, and in cases where there are
no "partles who paid them? If not one
cent was paid in those cases, how is he
going to return it; to whom is he going
to make the tender?
These are questions the people want
answered. The HERALD will be glad to
hear, in anyway, from the attorneys
or any one else.
A LITTLE BRIEF AUTHORITY.
Govaruor Af0a1J ~ Tl1;,o:o L.. -.