The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1905-04-12

of8 10 the employment or counse
70 assist the Prosecuting Attorney
in the prosecution of the two muir
der cases tried at the March term Of
the Circuit Court. was for the pur.
pose of letting the tax payers OF
the county know that their money
a. being expended in 8 way that
We did not think was authorized by
Law. We expressly disclaimed any
intention of doing the Court a
wong. by saying that We did not
think it would do a corrupt thing.
We believe the Court did what 1t
though was right, as we have be-
fore stated. The Court necessarily,
concluded that the Prosecuting
Attorney needed assistance, else
the employment would never have
been made. If the Prosecuting
Attorney was capable of perform
ing his duties, and the Court knew
it. it would be doing a willful wrong
iii expsaadding one cent of the peo-
pies money to get assistance f0E
him. We were informed by one
of the attorneys that he was to re-
ceive $4,000 for assisting in the
Cremeans prosecution. We as
sumed that the Court would not
discriminate, and that it would be
as liberal to one attorney as anoth-
er. and that. therefore, they all re-
ceived the same; hence we thought
that the expenditure was at least
$4,000 The State was represent
ed in the Cremeans case by the
Prosecuting Attorney, Rankin
Wiley, John L. Written, j. E
Beller, B. b. Blagg and F. G..
MusgraYe. four of whom, at least,
received pay from the county. The
State was represented in what is
known as the italian case by the
Prosecuting Attorney, O. E Hogg,
Somerville & SomerviIle, Adam B.
Littlepage and John L. Written.
the last of whom was employed by
the county. 1t occurred to Us that
the employment of so many sttor-
neys was not necessary in the first
named case, and that it was not
necessary to employ any one in
Othe last named case. We under
stand that the records of the coun
ty show when the employment was
made, land that certainly Is the
best evidenoe), and that the en-
pIoyment was at the time mention
ed in the last issue of this paper
We stated then that the law did
not authorize the County Court to
employ counsel to assist in the
prosecution or defense of any suit,
and we still say so. The Prosecuting
Attorney of the county receives
his salary for the services he rem
ders to the State and county. and
if the Court can expend ten dollars
in securing bin assistance. it can
go farther and expend ten thousand
dollars for the same purpose. IF
it be said that the County Court
did what it thought was for the
best, and that there can be no linn
it or restraint placed upon it, what
remedy would the tax payers have?
The county could be bankrupted,
and no one know of it until the
evil was done. There is no danger
of this, we know, but we are en-
deavoring to show the evil of such
matters, and to chow why it is
wrong.
We are not aware that any money
has ever been paid to an Attorney
to assist the City Solicitor, of the
Town of Point Pleasant. in the
olscharge or his duties.
It may be that the County Court
of Mason County has heretofore
expended money for similar pur-
poses, and it is probable that the
Court thought the Prosecuting
Attorney needed assistance. IN
fortunately. this county has not
always, in the past, as in the pres
ent, had, ss Prosecuting Attorney.
the best legal talent at the bar. If
the County Court of this, or any
other county. has heretofore en-
ployed counsel to assist the Prose.
outing Attorney. this paper was
not responsible for that employ
ment. We say that it was not
authorized by law, and We ohal-
lenge the production of any law to
show that suoh an employment is
warranted. What if other ooun-
ties beside this nave done the