Amador ledger., 1904-12-02
MISREPRESENTATION.

The Calaveras Prospect of last
week says in substance, that the
Ledger, in harping on the justice
salary bill, has assumed to know
more about the law than the supreme
court, and that the editor should
start a supreme court of his own.
The idea conveyed is that the Ledger
has adversely criticised the decision
rendered by the appellate court in
the justices and constables' salary
grab cases relating to Amador
county. We have no objection to
fair and honest criticism from our
brethren of the press for any stand
taken by the Ledger, but we do
most emphatically protest against
Misrepresentation. 1t is the duty
of any journalist, before undertaking
to criticise the position of another
editor, to either reproduce the
article dissented from, or to correct
ly state the substance of the
article. The Prospect has not taken
the trouble to do either of these
things. Instead thereof whether
at the nod of interested parties or
of its own motion we know MOTT
has placed the Ledger in a position
of the Prospects own choosing, and
proceeded to cannonade us from the
viewpoint of its own creation. For
the information of the Prospect we
will say that the Ledger has never
INDUCED in any adverse criticism of
the supreme court decision referred
to. We defy the Calayeras editor
to produce a line from the Ledger
derogatory of that decision. On the
contrary, we have repeatedly re-
ferred to that final Judgment in de-
Tense of the position we have con-
tended for from the beginning
namely, that the salary bill was, in
spirit and letter, a violation of the
constitutional provision, which pro-
hibits any increase of compensation
of any elective officer after election
or during his term of Office. Now
the supreme court decision SAYS in
effect, that within the limitation
above stated, the legislature has the
authority to change the mode of
compensation; that the finding of
the trial court in the Amador case
was that the law in dispute was not
an increase of compensation, but
merely change in the method of
compensation; therefore the iudg-
ment of the lower court was affirm
ed. The affirmation of the supreme
court was based on the finding of
fact by the lower court that the
salary bill did not provide an in
crease of compensation. We do not
profess to be versed in the winding
paths of law, but we do claim the
privilege of an average juror to be
able to appreciate matter of fact.
Amador county has paid, since the
salary bill became law, between
$1,000 and $4,000 over and above what
the justices and constables of this
county would have been entitled to
as compensation under the fee bill in
effect at the time of their election
and when they entered upon the
duties of their Office. 1t is this wide
divergence on question of fact that
the Ledger has called attention to,
not to the supreme courts decision.
We do not know what difference the
law passed concerning Justices and
constables' compensation in Gala
veras has made in the contents of
the treasury of that county. That
is point upon which the people of
our sister county have been kept in
the dark. Investigation would
doub btless show that the taxpayers
there have been done" in about the
same ratio as in Amador county, by
this no-increase-but-m t-merely-change-
of-mode-of e-of-compeusation racket.