Durango semi-weekly herald., 1902-06-16

| charges were legal and properly al
lowed. | do not so understand the
| law: but II the questions are decided
| by the courts there will thereafter be
safe rule for the commissioners to
| follow.
Why get hysterical over this suit ?
| | think Mr.. Cooke has not done so,
| and hardly believe he thinks | am
actuated by personal malice or a de-
sire to injure him. The fact is, the
items involved are trivial: the cues
tions involved are important to the
present and future boards and to the
taxpayers.
Suppose every charge made against
me by the Democrat were true how. l
ask. does that affect the questions in.
volved In this suit
The Democrat assumes to itself too
much Importance. II would seem It
was the sole object of attack. and yet
think its owner is not defendant
in any of these suits, and doubt
whether the association has ever Civ
en- one thought to him.
There is. however some cause for
his rawlings which he has not mention
ed He was the beneficiary of one of
the most extravagant acts of the com
missioncrs. Let 1t be remembered
that. In response to a call for bids for
county printing for 1901 bids were
made as low as nine cents per inch
for the first insertion and one cent per
inch for subsequent insertions. At
somebody's instance all bids were re-
iected and the printing let to the
Democrat without contract The cost
TO the county and the gain to the Dem
ocrat can he figured by any taxpayer
who will 20 over the printing bills
for that year Nv recollection is that
he will find that the Democrat was.
in some instances, at least, paid at
the rate of eiahty-four cents per inch
for first insertions. and forty-eieht
cents per inch for subsequent inser-
tions.
If it should happen that the courts
decided such transaction Illegal. the
graft (for can call II nothing less)
will be cut off
If the law allows the commissioners
to eypend recklessly an extra thous-
and dollars in this way. what is there
to prevent the expenditure of ten
thousand?
If the Democrat can lawfully re-
ceive such favors. why not the Wage
Garner, The Herald. the Republican
or the Telegraph when a majority of
the commissioners happen to be
friendly to one of them?
Do you wonder the Democrat has
rabies or that 1t tries to cover up the
real issues by an attack on us? 1t
may be the commissioners nave le-
gal right to spend the peoples mon
ey thus. If so. I want to know 1t. and
think I will find out before this suit
is dropped. For this reason. I have
undertaken to pay the costs of this ac-
tion and to accept my full share of the
responsibility for these suits. have
favored their institution. but I am not
vain enough to imagine mine to be
the controlling influence In their COM
mencement.
Wrongfully or rightfully, with. or
without malice of their own cool judg-
ment or tricked by gang" the asso-
citation sanctioned these suits, and |
believe that taxpayers in respectable
numbers still wish to see them
pressed to a conclusion
make no claim to responsibility
except as to numbers, for l have long
since learned that no man who has
opinions of his own or who, inten-
tionally or otherwise, treads upon the
doughty colonels toes Tor interferes
with his little CRAFTS which appear to
be innumerable) can be respectable
in his eyes.
Without denying any charge as to
my own motives. do insist that the
great majority of the taxpayers back
of this movement are actuated by no
desire except to have the law com
piled with or without fear or favor;
to have the public trusts honestly.
faithfully and economically admins
tered and to curtail expenditure and
reduce taxation.
My own motive can be completely
vindicated by adopting the logic of the
Democrat From it, learn that If |
did not vote for Joe Smith, the neces
sary sequence is that these suits are
malicious. unfounded and outrageous
Now. as it happens, l did vote for
Joe Smith. 1t of course follows that
these suits are judicious. beneficial
and in every way proper Could any
| thing be palmer?
Seriously (although the colonel has
long since passed the period when
he should ever be taken seriously do
not his wild mouthlngs betray his
weakness. and show where the shoe
pinches?
To my mind they establish two
! things First, the lnordinate vanity
1 and egotism, amounting almost to In
| sanity of the writer who assumes that
| he Is the universal target, when in
fact, he is only an incident-an ex-
| crescence.
Second-That there is something
| which cannot be defended, and which,
while IT cannot be met by argument
is attempted to be covered up by
blind abuse. Abuse is not an argu-
ment. but it is the only weapon the
| Democrat can use