The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1898-04-05

when the half Of the claim il collected
goes to him as we have been informed
is the contract in this case.
You say: Ought not she (the State)
to pay what is legally due7 Generally
we would say Eyes," but there are
times when a claim may be legal and
not just. Were not the many millions
of bonds issued just after the war
leqaLP Did the State pay or repudiate
the maiority9 Were not the States
bonds issued during the war IegGL2
You agree that they we're, but you'll
not say that the State should pay
them, and we are pursuaded that you
would not hesitate to say that these
claims as they are should pever bepaid
il you could divest yourself of your
connection with the ase and look at IL
as a plain diSGnterested citizen OF the
State. You have an excellent oppor-
tunitY now to make the business Of
your claim an issue in the next cam
paign, as the Supreme Court has re.
40GE0U UnO "AO4O A4AVGO4 W. s0SS WHY
We do not say the claims are not legal.
We are not lawyers. O1e thing the
Judge informs us which we did not
know before, was that the Supreme
Court set the law aside in the spring of
"a Ola n. @. 770) and that all these
charges were worked up before the ex
pIration of the first year of the law.
Had it run on until now it might have
included, at the same rate, nearly every
voter in Eastern North Carolina and
taken all the taxes from these to have
paid the cost. Who can tell2-
A summing up shows the law under
which these suits were originated was
ratified March Ash, 1893, and virtually
annuLled by fall term Of Hyde Superior
Court of same year. Hence were in
force only about eight months.
Under this law, while 1T was in force,
the clerks of the Superior Courts and
sherIffs Of Pamlico and Carteret coun
ties made bills of cost against the State
for issuing and serving warrants,
amounting to IS, Gil 15, besides attend
ing to their other regular business.
The two counties paid into the State
Treasury on account of State taxes last
year, 81. AS 50. Hence these four we're
claim from the State 81, 1875 So cents
more for their p%atriotic(O services to
the State eight months, than their
counties paid to the State in a year.
Suppose this had continued until
now, these men might own the State
Treasury.
Judge Allen says out OF the 1893 suits
brought mot less than two hundred"
of the bills contained no charge for
sheriffs' fee, while the bills on file in
the Auditors Department, on which
the warrants were issued show only 81
bills without the sherlf's fee charged.
Sworn afhdavits already on file in the
Treasury Department by parties whose
names appear in the bills, now number
IS living, and the friends Of eight who
we're known to be dead when the law
was passed, making 80, so far, many Of
whom swear they never dreamed of own
ing a foot of oyster bed, and but for see
ing their names in the bills as published,
would never have thought of it. These
testimonials are still coming in. The
sherif's fee stands charged against
seven out of the eight whose neighbors
or relatives swear were dead when the
law was enacted.
Taking these facts as they are, we
insist that there is fraud, and that the
attorneys who are prosecuting the
claims for half what they a get out
of it, as the Treasurer is informed, are
particeps c~rimtmis, and Judge Aliens
explanation does not explain him out
of it, though from his letter it appears
that he himself may be ignorant Of
some Of the facts in the Cas
4