Lewiston evening teller. [volume] (Lewiston, Idaho) 1903-1911, 1904-02-04

The sewer Investigation ""s resumed
this morning AMI taa only witness t"s-
tifying was NJ. Ps.t'ae vt' testified
that In several instances d. made or
ders directing the contractors 70 d"
some parts Of their work over. Upon
this testimony being offered. the county
attorney said that h. had no other sit
nesses to produce except eN-MaSor
skinner and that h. was ont Of town
and would not return for day or two.
Attorneys for the defendant stated
that they had no evidence 70 offer and
urged the motion to discharg" the de-
PENDANT on the grounds that TN evil
dence showed that Mr. Eicheuberger
was not an officer Of the city Of Lew
iston. and also that the evidence
showed that there was no such office
in the city Of Lewiston as that Of sewer
inspector.
The court permitted the defendant
to go to be held upon the continuing
bond that was given several days ago
stating that II might be sometime be-
fore the evidence would be transcribed
and before the court would be able to
give any decision in the matter.
The county attorney stated that he
desired to review the authorities upon
the question whether Mr.. Eichenberger
was an officer and IL he were not the
defendant could not be held.
1t was stated by the county attorney
that it was not his intention to un-
Justly criticise anyone in this matter,
and that inasmuch as he had given
each OF the councilmen and other city
officers the opportunity to make a
statement regarding the changes of the
sewer contract and specifications, and
that each of them had denied any
knowledge regarding the change there
OF. that II was but fair to also give
ex- Mayor Skinner the same opportun-
ity to make a statement in the matter,
and this he would do as soon as Mr..
skinner returned to Lewiston.
Attorneys for the defendant were aft
erward seen by Teller reporter and
state that while the city council had
authority To create offices not provd-
ed for under such charter, it must be
done by a ballot and not by voice vote,
and that If there is no such Office Gre
ated. there can he no officers thereof
either de facto or de jura: that the
evidence in case clearly showed that
the city council never had At any time
attempted To create any such office
either by voice or by ballot and that
the employment of Mr.. EiChenberger as
such sewer inspector was by voice and
not by ballot. and further that the sew
er contract and specifications provided
the the sewer inspectors shall be em-
ployed by the city engineer and be un-
der his directions.
THE employment of MIR. Eichenber-
ger by the city council was not only
without authority, but was also a
breach Of and an interference with the
sewer contract; and that Mr.. Echen-
berger was not only an officer Of the
city of Lewiston. but that he was a
tresspasser on the sewer lines while
attempting to act as sewer inspector
and that the defendant, or Naylor, OF
anyone else under the directions of the
contractors had perfect right to pre-
vent II they saw fit. Mr.. EichenbergeI
from interfering with the progress OF
the construction OF the sewer. and that
indeed the action of the defendant was
legitimate, and not crime and not
immoral
Al the evening session yesterday OF
the investigation, in the Haight trial
the following members of the old coun-
Gil testified concerning the sewer con-
tract while they We're members of the
city council.
George Frost testified that While he
was a member of the council that he
did not remember of any changes in
the sewer contract being discussed in
the presence of the council and that NJ
was of the opinion that the plans and
specification of former city Engineer
Briggs We're the ones signed mp by
Naylor 4 Noriin, the sewer contractors
He also stated that he never heard il
discussed on the outside either.
Mr.. Cole was placed ON the stand
by the state and gave practically the
same testimony as did MIR. Frost. hut