The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1896-01-11

did receive. Mr.. Morrison simply re-
ported the facts as he found them and
intimated that in his judgment they
did not present a complete case
against Mr.. Keegan from a county
standpoint. He did not, however, at
tempt to shield Mr.. Keegan or influ-
ence the commissioners beyond an ex-
preston of opinion which logically
grew out of the facts as they presented
themselves. Reduced to word the
case is this: The report of Expert
Lalk indicates that Mr. Keegan over
charged individuals, but there is no
data at hand which affords legal evi-
dence in support, hence, the only way
to establish the fact of overcharge is
for some individual or individuals to
make direct complaint in legal form
If it can be proven that overcharges
were made then Mr.. Keegan would be
answerable to the individual, civilly
aud to the people, criminally. But the
county can not step in and attempt to
to recover from an officer his illegal
fees. Such fees no more belong to the
county than to Mr.. Keegan. They be-
long to the individuals from whom col
lected and they alone can bring action
for recovery. This, it seems to us, is a
rational view of the case and appears
to have been adopted by the commits
sioners. The Leader, without giving
, the matter moments thought, takes
an opposite view, on what grounds is
unknown, and pounces on the COM
missioners and Mr.. Morrison, charging
the former with attempting to cover
up some dark fraud and. for want of any
thing pertinent to the issue, impeaches
Mr.. Morrison for asking $500 fee in a
murder case. The Leader imagines it
makes a strong point by citing Mr..
Partridge in evidence that Mr. Morri-
son actually did ask a $500 fee. Well,
whoever denied it? We may also cite
Mr.. Partridge and Mr. Stafford in evil
denCe that Mr. Morrison told both of
them emphatically and repeatedly that
he did not wish to engage in the case,
and wished they had not consulted him
with reference to it. He also informed
them that, at that stage of the proceed
ings, if the case were to be tried i'm
mediately, he could do no good and
that to employ him would be useless
expenditure of money. But, after all,
is $500 such an inordinate, such an "un-
just" fee for lawyer to demand in
murder case, and that one of the most
heinous i'll the annals of crime? And
what earthly bearing has it on the &C
ton of the commissioners with refer.
ence to the Keegan matter? The
Leader accuses us of facing about and
trying to shield party boss while at
the same time denying it. We do not
understand who is meant by party
boss in this connection unless it
be some member of the board of
county commissioners. We have made
no attempt to excuse or defend any
body else, and if upholding, in right do
ing, a board of county commissioners
a majority of whom belong to other
than our party, is subserviency to
party bossism, we cheerfully accept the
odium which attaches to such conduct.
The Leader censures us for not using
expert Lalk's report against Mr.. Kee-
gan while we were advocating him for
re election. Well, as Mr.. Lalk's report
did not appear until several months af
ter the election, We were accidentally
prevented from exploiting it. Besides,
it was not our business to EXPERT
county offices, especially, as no formal
charge of irregularity had ever been
made. Why didn't the Leader avail it.
self OF Mr. Keegan's alleged miscon-
duct? 1t was certainly and substan-
italy more interested in his defeat
than were we. We were not hunting
material with which to defeat Mr.. Kee-
gan or impeach his official character:
but had we possessed reliable evidence
OF his incompetency or dishonesty, we
should not have supported him But
before accusing any officer or board of
officers of malfeasance, we shall be
very sure to examine the record and
neither by direct statement or obliuue
hint make any charge which is not
well supported by the facts,
which precaution we earnestly recon-
mend to the Leader.