The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1899-02-28

Those Fees.
An attempt has been made to cast dis
credit upon one of our county officials by
charging the Solicitor with collecting
large fees for every little service. On
first reading and taking the figures pre-
sented by the paper publishing them,
many persons have inclined to the belief
that Mr.. Chambers has received an enor-
nous sum from the county treasury. In
speaking of the matter recently the paper
mentioned suggested that the County
Collectors report be studied. If the
paper had itself carefully examined the
books and vouchers it would lave modi-
fled its statements. That is not it's way
of doing business, however, its sole OBJ
ject being to create suspicion or distrust
of a man and to lead to a false impression
regardless of the truth.
Equal and exact justice to all men of
whatever state or persuasion, religious or
political, is the high-sounding motto of
the journal in mind, but its action is just
the reverse, equal and exact justice" is a
stranger to its domains. THE News is in
favor of justice and for that reason it has,
unsolicited, taken the trouble to inquire
into the actions of Solicitor Chambers in
connection with his collection of fees.
An examination of the books of Auditor
Gibson shows that on May 10, 1898, Mr..
Chambers drew from the county the sum
of $194,5 90. The accusation is that the
Solicitor has in nine months drawn from the
treasury $5S4.25, but the correct amount
is 1855. 10 and it does not date from the
May meeting but from February, 1898.
The bill referred to above was for services
since February 10 and included $143. so
for work in the trolley matter, which sun
was refunded by the trolley companies.
On May "a he received 500, which was also
paid by the trolley people.
Much has been said about Mr.. Chambers
charging the county $40 expenses for a
trip to Trenton in connection with the
opinion or whether the Board of Free
holders is a continuous body. There is
no record of any such bill and there never
was any presented for payment. Mr..
Chambers was directed to give a written
opinion, which he did, and his charge for
it was $40.
1t is unnecessary to go over all the
items in this case, but it is not out of place
to call attention to one or two matters.
Of the amounts collected $11. SO was for
kilograms, postage and car fare, and $50
was paid for services rendered in the re-
cent investigation of the trolley matter by
a special committee.
1t will not do any harm to give this lat
ter subject just a little space. 1t will be
remembered a committee was appointed
to inquire by what right the trolley road
had used some of the county bridges.
This fact was disclosed by the introduce
ton of an apparently innocent resolution
at a meeting of the Board. The intro
Queer was the Democratic member from
Bordentown who wanted the county to
expend a good sum of money to widen a
bridge for the use of the trolley, and we
might say here we have no recollection of
this action being censured or criticised by
the Democratic censor. A committee was
appointed and held several meetings in
conference with the managers of the cor
poration. Mr.. Chambers attended those
meetings, not Of his own volition, but at
the committees request, the members of
which will undoubtedly bear out the state
ment that the Solicitor told them his pres
ence was not needed. They insisted on his
attendance and he charged for the work
as he had a right to and as any other lawyer
would have done. If there is any fault
to be found it is not with him, but, rather,
with the Board for not insisting on the
trolley company reimbursing the county.
Here is a chance for hat watchdog of
the treasury" Honest Abe" to do good
work.
To sum up the entire affair, so far as
the Solicitor is concerned, it is found he
collected, not 1854. % as stated, but 1865. 10.
Take from his $163. 80 refunded by the
trolley and $11.59 paid for legitimate ex-
penses, and you have the sum of 1890,
which includes the $75 salary or retain
ing fee" as it has been designated. And
if the Democratic watchdog" had kept
the Democratic Board up to its work the
trolley people would have paid the $50
mentioned and the total amount would
nave been further reduced. AS it now
stands Mr.. Chambers has drawn from the
treasury, not in nine months, but in a
year, $500, which is somewhat less than
1854. % as stated-a difference of 1894. 20.
THE News devotes its space to this mat
ter simply as an act of justice to an honest
official whose record in all respects will
compare favorably with that of those who
are attempting to defame him, and we are
pursuing the same course in this respect
as in other instances. Our columns will
substantiate this statement. In conclusion
we reiterate a statement made last week
that every bill of Mr.. Chambers, with one
exception, was ordered paid by a Demo
cratic Board of Freeholders, by and with
the consent of the watchdog" of the
treasury.