The Alamogordo news. (Alamogordo, N.M.) 1899-1912, 1906-11-03
ANOTHER SUTHERLAND LETTER.
To Alamogordo News:-


intended on my part as a spur to
his memory with a hope that he
would publish the facts about
the two first bond issues of Otero
county, would seem to call for a
little more explanation on my
part, especially as the Advertis-
er of the Goth, ult., has still fur
ther iuggled the Facts and Fig
ures" pertaining to that last
bond issue.
They say:
A tale that is lily told is half
a lie."
And then proceeded to add to
the floating debt left by the first
Republican administration the
Lucero judgment of $500 and
the Dona Anacounty judgment of
$I642. The Lucero judgment
was taken long after the Repub-
licans were out of office. That
judgment was for transcribing
the records from Dona Ana
county as provided in our our
organic act. The Republican
commissioners can claim more
credit for an attempt to cut that
bill than the Democrats, for they
began before the work of
transcribing was commenced,
and asked through me as their
agent that no such things as
marriage licenses, small bills of
sale, and useless matter of that
sort, be put into the records, as
the county was poor and not able
to pay even for necessary work.
The Democrats only fought the
payment-they lost. Are the
Republicans responsible for that?
Now the Dona Ana Judgment for
1882 q called it $500 in my
letter.) That pertains to that
celebrated bond issue of 500, 600
and $1006 premium. How are
the Republicans to be held for
that? They forgot to put in law
yers' fees and expenses. 1t was
obtained under law passed
AFTER the Republicans went
out of office and with a Demo-
cratic member of the legislature
from Otero county looking out
for our interests and the inter
ests of the Democratic counties.
1t was carelessness OH his part
to allow Otero county to be
caught in the manner it was. 1t
was carelessness on the part of
the Democratic board to take the
kind of a receipt they took when
they paid that DOna Ana debt
that caused that Judgment for
$1642.O3 to be rendered against
Otero county. l was asked to go
to Las Cruces at the last hearing
of this case as a witness when
OterO county was allowed to put
in evidence. | was told that my
evidence would be sustained by
o receipt in full. Judge Sherry,
attorney for the county in the
case, called me into his office and
handed me the receipt to read,
saying, 1T is not a receipt In full
as l was informed and have told
the court" / read tit was not
q receipt in full. And Judge
Sherry said that he could not use
me as the case was. lost on that
ceipt. 1t is unfair and
borders on the criminal to charge
it up now to the Republicans.
They were out of office when the
law was passed, and when the
suit was brought.
These facts knock a hole in
some of the Advertisers con-
clusions and summaries and
throw a doubt on the whole
statement.
/ have not the time to go to
the records and make compari-
sons as to cost of administering
the affairs or business of our
county heretofore nor at the
present time, but from my ex-
perience as one of those first
Republicans who began with
nothing and had to contend with
adverse sections of our organic
act, | know that our expenses
must grow as our county grows
for they outgrew our income in
o very short time in the begin
ming. And those comparisons
made by the Advertiser wont
bear careful thought when you
consider the following factsI
The Democrats spent all they
got and paid $1661. AS of first
Republicans debts and left a
floating debt of $956O.24 for the
second Republican administra-
tion to pay. The second Repub-
licans are not out yet. They are
dealing with a growing business,
have had no bond sale premiums
and no double interest to juggle
into the current expense fund,
and on July 2, 1905, had a float
ing debt of only $1715.25, cash
on hand $3lO8.90, balance after