The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1900-10-19

airy OF 5000 per annum, Just one-half the
amount Its Democratic predecessors had
paid Democratic lawyer Charles L.
Hoffman, under this employment, acted
as legal adviser for the commissioners
and other county officers up to April,
1894, and during this time he did all the
legal business of the county unaided, and
the county paid no other attorneys fees.
In February, 1894, the Supreme Court,
in the case OF Meller VS.. Commissioners
OF Logan County, decided that county
commissioners had no power to employ
legal adviser by the year. but had power
to employ lawyers in civil cases and other
matters, when necessary"
AT the time that Charles L. Hoffman
rendered his resignation the county was
involved in heavy litigation in which
Charles l.. Hoffman was the attorney for
the county. AS he was familiar with this
litigation and there existed no good rea-
son why the county should change attor-
neys, he was. retained by the commits
sioners to continue in this litigation Sub
sequenty the Republican board of 1906
and 1896 employed the said Hoffman in
litigatlons which arose from time to time
IN which the county was party, and he
was also employed by the Fusion board
of 1897 and 1893 in one or two important
matters. And the official records will
show that although he was employed in
not less than 80 litigated cases in which
the county was a party, only one case.
involving about 5000, was lost by the
county.
Judge Keat, another Republican law
yer, was also employed by the Republi-
can board in 1906, but at this time he was
attorney for some parties who had cases
against the county, in which Charles L.
Heitman was attorney for the county
by comparing the official records of
the two parties on this matter it will be
found that Republican attorneys were
paid by Republican commissioners less
than one-halt the amount paid by Demo-
cratic commissioners to Democratic law
yers, and the official records will also
show that Republican lawyers performed
tor the county at least three times as
much service as did the Democratic law
yers.
Coming to the record since 1903, when
by an amendment to the Constitution.
each county has its own county attorney,
whose salary is by the Constitution, to
be liked by the county commissioners at
the July meeting of the board prior to
general election We find that the Flu
sion board of county commissioners at
Its July meeting in 1893 fixed the salary
OF the county attorney at $500 per an
mum. When this was done the jurisdc-
ton of the board over the salary Of the
county attorney for the next two years
was at an end, but when it became evil
dent that the Fusion candidate for county
attorney would be elected, his Fusion
friends decided that $500 per annum
was not sufficient compensation, and at
the October meeting, on October FL, 1903
the Fusion commissioners rescinded their
order made at the July meeting fixing his
salary at $500 per annum, and made
new order fixing it at ST 900 per annum.
The present Fusion county attorney has
been drawing this $1,000 per annum ever
since he was indicted into office, and he
knows, and every lawyer knows, that $500
per annum of this compensation is illegal !;
but our Fusion friends say nothing about
this matter. Furthermore the present
Fusion county attorney, although draw
ing $1,000 per annum in fees, 5000 per an
mum of which is clearly illegal, from the
county treasury, has not been in the coun-
ty ten days since April of this year, and
when people desire criminal cases prose
cuted, in many instances they have been
SOlllpcllSu 10 employ lawyer 10 COnduct
the prosecution, and pay for his services
themselves; but our Fusion friends say
nothing about this.
| In April, 1000, this Fusion county at
torney and the present Fusion board OF
commissioners, acting under his advice,
employed Spokane attorney to assist the
county attorney in the prosecution of a
criminal action in the District Court
and paid this Spokane attorney 5000 ont
of the county treasury for his services, in
defiance of the decision of the Idaho Su-
Ipreme Court in the case of Conger against
the Commissioners of Latah County (4S
Pac. Io64)
The record of the two parties on the
question of attorneys fees is submitted
by the Republican party to the taxpayers
for their consideration, and we invite the
fullest investigation, and the Republican
party stands upon the official records,
and not upon the mere assertions of Flu
sion Office holders. who either do not
know what the official records contain ;
or. if they know, deliberately try to de
ceive the taxpayers.