Williams news., 1906-10-27
A REPLY TO HIBBEN
No Forgiveness Wanted -Obey the
 Law-Put the Money Back

BuncOed:
 The County Recorder has at last come forth, girt round with self righteousness, bedecked with sad complacency, in his right hand carrying gentle peace, in his left, burning bunch of forgetfulness that all this should be With the tear valves wide open, forgiveness in his heart, the fees in his pocket, and the Dollar Compromise in his for getfulness, he wades through a page of the Coconino Sun, and master fully side steps the real issues of the campaign.
 Columns of what others did, ar rogating to himself the credit, but not a reference to the facts pre- scented in last weeks 'Gem." Fig ures showing how much he turned over, through the laws compulsion to the County. but not a unit of the thousands he has kept, which the law, as repeatedly interpreted by the Courts, has held belong to the people: Ahuse for those who did but their duty in trying to recover them, but gentle jollies for those ~,so1ofa1 thafr 0otho hD1l sacred their trust, for his and their profit: Ampli6cation of the bigness of their hearts-to him, but silence as to the size of their Gall in using the County's Franchise for their mutual benefit. Boquets for the judiciary, whose action and decis ions he distorts but no allusion to the words of that same tribunal. which fell like lead upon his soul: Il am of the opinion that the fees belong to the County and that it was his duty to pay them over !" Were those words prejudiced, MT Recorder? And if not, why don't you obey them as an honest officia l would?
 He attempts an exoneration by virtue of contract" made with the Supervisors of 1901 O2 Keep in mind, Reader, that the suit for $5,972 50 involved no part of the fees retained in those years, for ac ton on them was barred by the Statutes of Limitation, and he knows it. Had they not been, we would have included them in the suit, and shown that the Board of Supervisors had no more right to allow him those fees than they had to say that the County Treasurer could draw double his salary.
 Now. that 'contract" was either valid or invalid. If valid. why didn't he stand on it as his legal defense in the suit. and why was the "Conpromise" necessary? If valid, why was it that he interested himself in the passage of Bill by the Legislature of 1903, allowing these fees to the Recorder, which Bill was vetoed by Governor Bro die, and for which Bill the present District Attorney voted, which vote answers hecharge of persecution? ?" If the contract was invalid, as he knew it to be, why does he now seek to hide behind it? Take either horn. Mir Recorder; you cannot es cape the logic of the situation.
 He perverts the law when he says the legal fee for an abstract is but $1.25. That is only true when there is but one imminent of title in the abstract. For instance, if John Smith homesteads a piece of land his patent is the first imminent; if he sells to John Doe. the deed is the second imminent; third transfer is the third imminent, and if there are twenty transfers. there are twenty muniments noted in the abstract. in which case the legal fees are twenty times 50 cents or $1O plus 75 cents for the certifi cate at the end of the abstract The charge for an bstract is not fixed but depends upon the number of links in the chain of title, and if he failed to follow the law in that,