Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1900-10-03
RANK AND ROTTEN.
In its Zeal to Hoodwink the People of Barber
County. the Cressst Resorts to Barefaced
FaIsehoods and Garbled Figures.

If the Cresset ever did lay any claim
to fairness and reliability, it ought for
the sake Of decency, relinquish that
claim, after Its publication of a state
ment of the relative expense Of the
county attorneys Office under C.. W..
Ellis and Samuel Griffin respectively,
which appeared last week. The whole
article Is mingled with falsehoods and
garbled figures. ard even the editor of
the Cresset refused to vouch for Its
truthfulness two hours after the paper
was out. When he was asked for de-
tails of his computation he stated that
he knew nothing whatever of the mat
ter and RELIED ENTIRELY ON FIGURES
AND STATEMENTS FURNISHED by Coun.
ty Attorney Griffin. So it appears tina,
Mr.. Griffin is footing his own horn and
is responsible for the conglomerate
mess of Misrepresentation which ap-
peared In the Cresset last week. To
show how unreliable Mr.. Griffin Is in
quoting matters of record, 1t will not
be out of place to recall an instance.
In the spring OF 1899, he attempted to
run bluff on this Office for $500. The
county appeared to have some interest
In the lot on which the office Is located
and Griffin claimed we owed the county
$500 for rent. To settle the matter we
went before the Board and bought the
county's interest. Griffin opposed the
deal, and gave as one Of his reasons
that we had not paid our taxes for a
number of years-that we "stOod in''
with the sheriff and no tax warrant
was served. lie had looked over the
records and stated it to be fact. OF
course, we produced our tax receipts
and he fell down, but he never did have
the manhood to acknowledge that be
was wrong. The Cresset published
this falsehood and, like Griffin,
was not honorable enough to correct it.
We mention this merely to show that
neither Mr.. Griffin nor the Cresset can
be relied upon in quoting records.
Now what are the facts. The Griffin
article says that it cost the county 1897
for counsel to assist,C. W. Ellis when
he was county attorney in SO SO. That
is false. 1t did not COST the county
SINGLE DOLLAR. To make this sum
the Griffin-C resset push embrace $780,.
so paid to Long & Noble for service in
bond cases, which does not come with
in the duties of the county attorney,
but against which Mr.. Ellis advised,
and which he offered to do for much
less money. $50 Is included, which was
paid to A. l.. Herr for conducting the
Hudson tax case in the district court
Of Harper county and taking it up to
the appellate court. This is likewise
not duty of the county attorney. The
law does not require him to go outside
the county.
The SIS paid to A. l.. Herr In the
Finner case, and the SIS included in an
other item, were paid at the January
meeting of 1897, one week before Ellis
went into office. This work was done
under Beals' administration. The $40
allowed Beals in the Lamont case was
for work done by Beals during his
term of Office. The fees paid Ellis in
the Smith and Loftice cases was also
for work under Beals' administration
Here is $319.5O of the 1897 which they
claim was paid to assist Ellis, which
had no connection with his Office at ALL
The remaining $3.50 was paid to Mr..
Rumsey to conduct a case In the justice
court because Mr.. Ellis could not be
reached at the time. SO it is seen that
his figuring narrows down to plain lie.
MIR. Ellis was not assisted in the
prosecution of case, with one posi-
BILE exception. We challenge any
body to disprove this statement.
The Cresset's figures give the lie to
its own statement.
Now let US see what 1t has cost for
assistant counsel for Mr.. Griffin:
PAID by COUNTY.