The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-01-31
GRANVILLE COnPANY,


could not acquire legal claim against the
county they were serving.
To any charg. of wrongdolng the undersigned
answer with general denial. There was never
any "evident determination" by them ITO job,
contract and farm among themselves all the
benefits TO be derived from handing the county
purse" as charged, and they never let contracts
TO themselves or others at "eXhorbitant
prices" Neither one OF the undersigned, eN-
cept Mr.. Cain, have any claim upon 1.-The stoves,
furniture and fixtures In the building, anu the
county having refused, or been prevented from
paying Mr.. Can for the goods furnished, has
no tit.c whatever To them.
The undersigned also deny that they have
ever received any sa airy contrary 10 law. and if
they have no one has ever taken any action to
compe them To return IL TO the county treasury
and IL was the duty of the county attorney to
collect IL II they had done so. The commits
sioners have put In many days service to The
county for which they have not been paid. The
undersigned did not eXpend or allow during the
first II months of Their service $l03U5j tor
county expenses. They have not the figures at
hand and they cannot be certainly stated but
the actual expenditures for all the expenses OF
the county, leaving out salaries which are fixed
by law but inc uding copies OF the books OF
Deer Lodge county necessary for the cost OF
jail and other expenses, did not exceed $4,000
No wrong doing on the part OF the undersigned
can be shown from the records OF tile county, or
from any other source, and they stand ready 10
maintain the truth Of this assertion.
Mr. Brown says. in The communication re-
ferred To. that "th' taxpayers do not OBJECT TO
paying rent for "A court house. but they do OBJ
lect 10 be ng swinded. IL the commissioners
will pay for ornament improvements pa, on
this build ng by their direction, and other
money belonging to the county now In their DOS
session. they VIII gladly pay reasonable rental
for buildings occupied by the county Mr..
Brown Is not entirely cl ar in his language, but
he probably means that Tho swlndlo.' as no
calls II. is In the permanent Improvement on the
building. for II the taxpayers 10 not object to
paying "A reasonable rent, their objection Is TO
the permanent improvements" Now, If those
improvements which were constructed by con-
tract gwen TO the lowest bidder, are unreason-
able and eXtrayagant, why did not Mr. Brown
object To them at the time" Why did he make
his fight against the undersigned for letting
contracts for fl ting up the building instead OF
on their contracts for renting and furnishing IL?
Tho erection OF a vault, the changing of parti-
tons, windows, etr, would have been neces-
sary wherever the county Offices were put, and
tic cost, some $780,, would have been incurred
IL another building had been selected. Accord
In TO Mr.. Browns own words, he obtained q
cancelat ON OF warrants PAYABLE 10 the com
mssloners, Morse and cain. not because or the
fact they were paying eXoTbtant pr ces for
renting and furnishing the county bui ding, but
because they were eXiTavagant IN making what
he calls permanent improvements upon II.
The lifting up was nee -ssary for the com ort OF
the court and county officers and for the safety
of the records, and instead Of being useful 10
the building, II used for what 1t was intended.
work was positive injury. and there can
I've no good reason urged why tho undei Signel
should pay for It. IL any good reason could
have been assigned. Mr.. Brown void no doubt
have tried To nave the court cancel the warrants
issued in payment therefor
II MIR. Brown can show hat the undersigned
have In their possession any of the moneys be-
longing To the county, they Will gladly pay them
over; for themselves. they know OF no county
money I'm their possession
Ia closing the undersigned desire to state that
Judge Brantly IN deciding the case against Mr..
Morse and Mr.. Cain on The grounds stated. that
county commissioners could not acquire claims
against the county they were serving. asked MIR.
Brown why he did not inform the commissioners
that they could not acquire such claims at the
time they we're being made and that Nj. Brown
Al al kHflNtlftnTV RNninnntlnn
his failure toiperform his duty TO the county. as
well rs 10 the undersigned. nor why he only
began action after dispute had arisen between
him and the commissioners as To the labl ity Of
the county for rent OF his office. etc, nine
months after the building was rented.
G.. w MORSE,
GEORGE l.. CAIN,
4. {. ERENsCHLAG.
Helena. Jan. 90, 1895.