The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-01-08

there would still be money due the
county from the State; and the ques-
ton is, does the county intend to let
other counties have what Is coming to
them, and go without what is her own?
Mr.. Stephens insisted that if the
State should pay out the money claimed
by the counties the next tax levy would
have to make it up. The 33 1-3 per cent
allowed attorneys for collecting the
money is excessive
Mr.. Stephens declared that the senti-
ment Of the people was almost unani-
nous in favor of the resembling Of the
contract with the lawyers. The Cham
Der of Commerce, would, however, sus-
tain the Supervisors in a renewal of the
contract later on, if the condition of af-
fairs should warrant it, but for rea-
sonable fee only
Mr.. Hayden, speaking for the Sacra-
mento Grange, said that body desired
that the contract be rescinded, or at
least until something should transpire
later on to warrant it's renewal.
A. ]. BRUNER'S ARGUMENT.
<AAsAi ID uuSI VI Tic AndIlluGi VI
Commerce committee replied to some
OF the arguments Of Mr.. Devlin, from
a lawyers standpoint 1t is said the
State owes the counties 81, 100000 1t
would be an easy matter for the Legis-
lature to pass an Act putting the money
into the general fund, and all this liti-
cation would be useless. In a case of
this kind, however the county's rights
could be looked after by the District
Attorney. All the counties are inter-
ested. If Sacramento rescinds it's con-
tract the other counties will do so, the
money will remain in the State Treas
ury, and the next tax levy will be that
much less
Mr.. Bruner claimed that the Super
visors have the power to rescind its
contract. No county can afford to paw
such fee as SO 1-3 per cent for the COL
lection of money legally due It. He
understood the Legislature will pass an
Act abolishing these county commits
sions for collecting State taxes. The
chance should not be allowed for, few
attorneys to make the possible sum of
S6OOOOO or 100000 for transferring
back from the State to the counties
about 81 100000. There must be a be-
ginning somewhere, and Sacramento
should be the first to rescind its con-
tract. The Chamber of Commerce will
stand behind the board should the re-
cision of the contract be contested.
MR.. DEVLIN AGAIN
Mr.. Devlin said that so far as he and
his associates are concerned they de-
sired to act in harmony with the Board
of Supervisors, and no doubt the San
Francisco lawyers interested with him
and his associates would be pleased to
meet and consult with the board in the
matter.
The money in the State Treasury IS
money that was taken from the tax
payers of this county, and what objec-
ton can there be to having it paid
back into the County Treasury?
If this money is due the county it
should be paid over. The only question
is, is the proposed compensation too
high? That is a matter worthy of con-
sideration and argument. If the Su-
pervisors think they could make better
terms, the attorneys would be willing
to make some other arrangement per-
haps, and take smaller fee, on a fixed
basis.
Suppose" said Mr.. Devlin, I'VE
should agree to collect for nothing
this money for Sacramento, and put
into the County Treasury money COL
lected from Sacramento taxpayer
according to arguments made here, the
money would be rejected"
AS to resembling the contract, it re-
quires the consent of both parties be-
fore it can be rescinded, said Mr.. Dew
lin. If the objection to this whole mat
ter is the paying of an excessive fee to
lawyers, let the Supervisors and the at
torneys consult together and see If any
better terms can be made. But why
should the county refuse to accept
money due it, since it had to first come
from the taxpayers? The argument
had been made that the county should
not take this money from the State if
it were thrown at it. There is neither
sense nor reason in this.
Mr.. Bruner said he did not see where
in the county could be benefited if the
money We're turned over by the State
free of cost, as it would eventually
have to be paid back. The only pur-
pose of the Chamber of Commerce in
opposing the carrying out of the con-
tract was to subserve the interests of
the people.
SUPERVISOR MORRISON
Said the board had not acted hastily
in this matter The District Attorney
had advised the board that he did mot
believe the State owed the money to the
county. but that it was in the power of
the board to employ counsel to collect
any money which it believed to be due
the county.
Mr.. Morrison then stated that the
attorneys were employed to collect this
money, as they We're confident it could
be collected. Other counties were MAX
ing contracts for collecting what was
due them, and the board considered it
was making a good bargain. He knew
the rights of parties to a contract, and
would not vote to rescind the contract
until the District Attorney had first
filed with the board a written opinion
as to its power to rescind such con-
tract
In conclusion Mr.. Morrison moved
that the matter be continued till
Wednesday next at 2 o'clock p. M
This was agreeable to the attorneys
and the Chamber of Commerce COM
mittee, and it was so ordered
EvERYBODY's COLUMN.