Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1901-04-04
THE OTHER SIDE
J. G. Cross Makes Report,
Showing the City
in His Debt.
BENNS SENSATION NANISHES
The Report Was A Surprise to Some
of the Councilman. Who Had Been
Led to Believe Otherwise

The sensation sprung by Councilmen
Benn sin tones that could be heard hall
block away" according to the Bulle-
tin. at the council meeting on March IS,
came neal vanishing into thin air last
saturday night. when cx-City Attorney
Cross submitted his report. showing the
ialsitv Of the charges advanced, and
that the city was indebted to him to
the amount OF Sl42 s. instead OF him
owing the city "several hundred dol
lars
A peculiar feature OF the sensation
was the industrious manner the press
was worked in circulating the charges.
The Sound papers. wcro furnished with
accounts of the matter so quickly Il to
lead to suspicion that they We're pre-
pared in advance of the 'springing.
and so alike that they might easily have
been manifold copies OF q single dicta-
ton. These "dispatches were copied
into the.county papers. where ever the
editor was complacent. Here i'll Aber
deem the affair was mostly regarded as
a case going off half cooked, through a
zeal that was not wholly engendered by
care for the city's interest, an q Union
that was much strengthened by the raw
work OF the press agent. Below viii be
found the report Of Mr. Cross:
70 the Hon. Mayor and City Council
OF the City Of Aberdeen.
Gentlemen :-Speaking OF my account
with the said city relative to special i'm
provement tax matters, | respectfully
submit that in addition to what | have
heretofore reported, there exists the
following, to wit;
1.-The said city is indebted to me in
the items following.
To costs and fees in case No. 800,
City VS. Perkins $3l.5o.
TO costs and fees in the case OF City vs.
McNair, No. 37Ol, $3.50.
TO costs and fees in case No. 1908 City
VS. Gems 1918
To costs and fees in case No. 37O4, City
VS. Gems, $3.50.
To costs in case OF City VS. Forsith, No.
1905, $3.50.
To costs in case of City VS. Sanford, No.
5000, $3.50.
All of.which are matters of record in
court.
TO costs for serving summonses in tax
cases, not heretofore mentioned and
never prosecuted to judgment because
OF payment being made after service,
exhibit filed herewith) $l1.00.
And ~ this connection l bring and
submit herewith the pleadings made
the bases OF the said causes, marked
Bundle II
To statements of ownership OF pro-
perty necessary to foreclosure, by y.
W. Fleet, abstractor exhibit 2)S3.50.
To appearance fees in tax cases (Ex
hibit - 5000.
To commissions on taxes collected
$3O.77.
And in this connection will say that
at no time have retained any of the
commissions due me for the collection
OF delinquent taxes, but have reserved
the same for this accounting.
And l would state further that during
my administration and that OF Mr.. Pat
terson, as treasurer, l made it rule to
apply the collections on the warrants,
and then to turn the warrants in as
cash. In this way possible deficiency
on account OF accumulated interest
might be avoided. Usually it was pos
sible to take up even amounts in war;
rants, but in few instances it was not,
and as one of the instances l herewith
submit the endorsement receipt made
by Judge Irwin for J. +. Carson on
warrant issued against Local Improve
ment District No. 3. marked Exhibit A.
amounting to the sum Of Tl3.5G.
This receipt ! presented to the Treas
urer and he made such notation respect
ing it as will advise him OF the balance
due on the warrant. And | now ask
credit for the said sum so paid on ac-
count of the said warrant.
Speaking further OF the forged receipts
mentioned in my former