The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-06-24
a COSTLY CONTRACT.


eliminating from the resolutions pas
sed on Saturday, all reference TO col
fusion and fraud on the part of their
/ predecessors in Office. They have no
right to pass judgment on anything
but what has been offered in evidence
! before them. They are entitled to an
opinion as much as any other citizen.
but ought not to condemn anybody
without proof of guilt.
From the one-sided testimony that
has been given. it has been made to
appear that the county has paid at
least thirty per cent and perhaps forty
per cent more for the furniture in the
city and county building than it's mar
ket price, and that inferior goods have
been substituted for the class supposed
to have been purchased.
But that is only the case of the at
torney who is pushing the investiga-
ton. The other side has not been
heard from. Beyond a few general
denials and one or two specific state
ments on the part of former Off
cial, the other side has been silent. 1t
has a bad look that no defence has
been made, and that the agent of the
furniture company alleged to have per-
petrated this supposed swindle. did
not appear when expected. And that
strengthens the general belief that
there has been d huge fraud.
But on the other hand the agent
offered to make a statement when he
was here, and that was not permitted.
1t may also be true that neither he
nor the attorneys for the furniture
company were able to be present on
Saturday. At any rate only one side
of the case has been presented, and
it is on that the seIectmen based their
resolutions. declaring fraud in the
transaction between the furniture COM
pany and the county.
Granting for arguments sake that
their conclusions are correct, what
proof has been offered that there was
collision between the former county
officials and the company accused of
fraud? 1t may be argued that with
out such collision the swindle could
not have succeeded. Many people may
form the conclusion that such reason
ing is sound. And then the fact re-
mains that not a scintilla of the light
of proof shows the alleged collision.
No evidence has been even attempted
TO show that the former county Off
Gals are guilty of wrong doing in con-
nection with this matter.
In saying this, we express no opin-
ion as to the responsibility of the ex-
officials. We merely state the features
of the case as they have been present
ed to the county court We do say.
however, that before any judgment is
passed upon the late county authori-
ties, or upon anybody else supposed
to be implicated in the wrong that has
been wrought, ample opportunity
should be offered them for a full and
fair defense.
If the county court had passed the
resolutions offered in their original
form, they would have placed them
selves in a very unpleasant light be-
fore the public, and have exposed
themselves to just ridicule if nothing
worse. From such consequences they
were saved by the prudence and COM
mon sense of Judge McNally, who took
the legal and sensible position in re-
ference to the whole batch of resolu-
tons.
We have no sympathy with the fur
niture swindle nor with anybody i'm
plicated in the wrong. We think The
present county authorities We're justi-
fed in the institution and prosecution
of this inquiry. But we do not think
they have covered themselves with
glory in what they have accomplish
ed. And they would have exhibited
egregious folly in passing condemna-
ton upon persons against whom there
was no evidence of guilt
The one thousand dollars which it
has cost the county for the two Chi
cago expert pieces of testimony, is
rather an expensive luxury. We hope
the taxpayers viii be repaid for the
outlay in some savings from what has
been done. At present, however, we
must say the prospects for such re-
covery are not so brilliant as to daz-
zle the unprotected eye. That furni-
ture contract has been very costly and
the expenses do not seem yet to be at
an end