Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1904-10-19

which had been allowed time and
again by democratic district attor-
neys and boards of supervisors of this
county. One class of items was for
services rendered by Roberts in fol-
lowing for weeks and finally captur-
ing the Goddard murderers, and this
was the principal fee which was sub
sequently cut out by the board.
This disallowance by the board was
made in the face of the splendid work
done by Roberts which ended in
these criminals suffering the death
penalty. The sheriff charged mile
age for various men who made up
the posse which searched for days
after the murders. In preparing
his bill in this particular he followed
the example of ex-Sheriff Munds in
the Camp Verde murder of Rogers
and Wingfeld, which bill was allow
ed without cut or change by demo-
cratic board for a democratic sheriff
and with democratic district attor-
ney in office. 1t will be remembered
that Munds was not successful and
never arrested any one for this ter
rible crime, although he worked dill
gently.
When Roberts presents a similar
account for the Goddard murder case
which ended in complete success, Mr..
Clark passed the bill as his demo-
cratic predecessors had in like cases,
but the present democratic board dis
allows the very same classes of items
which had been allowed and paid in
the Munds bill. Was there any sense
or justice in this? The public will
say no. If Munds was paid for his
unsuccessful efforts in one murder
case, Roberts by all rules of right was
entitled to recompense for his efforts
which resulted in the apprehension
of the Goddard murderers. And come
to think of it, Munds bulked his
claim into four or five items while
Roberts presented his with every sort
of detail.
Why was this favoritism shownG
Why did the board discriminate
against Roberts? In all probability
because he was a republican. For
the records show that as long as dem
ocratic sheriffs pr.~ented like claims
they were paid by lsmocratic boards
and without objecu,t by democratic
district attorneys o. vas it to make
up in part for that 81 go which the
same democratic b ard donated to
the United Verde
Roberts brought suit against the
county for these fees, and though Mr..
CLARK had heretofore o. KID the ac-
count, when the county was sued he
was not disqualified from appearing
in the defense of the county's in
terests. When strictly legal ques-
ton was presented by suit, Clark as
district attorney, represented the
county. About the day the answer
Of the county was due, Mr.. Clark by
agreement with the attorney for Mr..
Roberts secured more time in which
TO answer, as he was going east. Mr..
Clark so advised the clerk of the
board of supervisors to the end that
The board might know the rights of
The county were not being neglected.
Clark had barely left the county
when the energetic board hired Film
wood and paid him $3.50 of the coun-
US money, an unnecessary and use
ess expenditure of the taxpayers
unds.
Ellinwood fled an answer in this
DIST. w ncu MI. \ 1dIh IcbuIncQ he
lied his answer demurring to the
and also pleading to the
merits. On the condition of the plead
rigs being stated to Judge Sloan, he
Erected that the case be tried ON
THE ANSWER FILED BY Mr..
Clark. Clark argued the demurrer
or the county, and Judge Sloan sus-
aimed Clark's demurrer, and this was
Ilark's work as district attorney. So
he record shows that Clark was not
to act for the county in
his case at all, but that Judge Sloan
ED that he was qualified by trying
he case on Mr.. Clark's answer.
What do the taxpayers of Yavapai
are about garbled statement or tire