The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-02-18

conclusion OF his crOSS-eXamlnatIOn the
case was continued until Monday.
The court then called up the case of
SIeen vs.. William Craig and A. II. MOyes.
Eight jurors were finally called to the
jury box, after which the cases were
continued. TO follow in order after the
close of the Chambers case, which will
probably occupy three days more When
the actions against Craig and MOyes were
called. the usual motions to strike out
and demurrers were offered, and were J
denied by the court who followed along
the rulings in the Chambers case
The first witness called yesterday morn |
ing the Chambers case was Bishop JOhn
Watson. who testified to the good stand /
ing Of the accused in the community In /
which he resides.
J. c. Nye was then recalled to be
cross-eXamined. The questions asked by
tered around the point that two distinct |
appropriations had been made by the CITY |
council TO cover the same work as dp-
peared on the minutes OF the council
MIR. Nye for an Appropriation.
During the examination the witness re-
marked that the appropriations Hlaue LOi
special services were less than TeSu-
lar So per diem would have enutled the
cOuncilmen to- He was asked why the
members of committees did not demand
ali that they were entitled to. and re
piled that the matter was discussed az /
council meeting It was there aSreeu
that eac5. member should prepare an
Ifemized statement Of his special serV- /
ices This was done. but owing 10 tile
great variety OF work that was uoIle III
this way and the many Speciai commit
tees appointed, there was a wide d.
-vergence in the statements submitted /
For this reason some of the councilmeh /
refused To ureSeUt their bills. and II was
afterv ards agreed TO allow each mem
her 800 for his services, when totaleG
considerably less than the aggregate OF /
the individual statements. As 10 ncreaS-
ing the regular salary by ordinance, the
witness stated that the question had been
considered but the councllmen could not
agree He also testified that Mr. Cham
bers had served on several boards du- |
ring 1905 and deserved more than douDie
the amount allowed
Chambers on the Stand.
Later Mr.. Nye was recalled TO the
stand and asked if the mayor and the
CITY engineer had received remuneration
for their services, the same as the cOun-
cim6n. they have also been connected
with one of the committees appointed TO
investigate the sidewalk work. He re-
piled that he did not think so The con
tention of the plaintiff Is that the OIL
GERS above named would nave peen more
entitled to pay than the counclImen, as
it was entirely out Of their line OF duty.
Fred ". Chambers. the defendant. was
then called TO the stand TO testify IN
his own behalf, and said that the queS-
JiOn of extra compensation arose in 1905
on account of the many improvements
that were then being made 1t was found
that in order to transact the large
amount of business these improvements
involved the cOuncilmen would pc COM
PEELED to leave their regular employment
and it was thought proper that they
should have extra compensation. The
MAYOR he said. appeared before the COun-
oil in the fan of 1903 and said he was
in favor o. making special apprOprl-
alton. and considered $500 per day to
he a fair remuneration. He said that
after investigating the matter and find
ing that this was customary IN otner
cities. the mayor approved the apprOpTl-
alton OF so made TO cover the years lSJ-
and 1902
The witness said that several members
Of in rff at
one time been sent to ST Louis as
special waterwoTks committee. and were
allowed, not only their expenses, but were
granted an extra compensation He stat
ed that in 1902 he had served on one spe-
cial committee; in 1888 on five boards,
and in 1894 on fourteen boards. In 1875,
he said. he served on a committee for
the inspection of improvements
Denied Cold Feet Story.
Mr. Chambers was put under a severe
ss-eXaminatiOn by Attorney J n
T[imbaH, which lasted for one and one
half hours he denied that the other
councilmen had tainted him and that he
had cold feet Is claimed by the prOSecu-
ton. but practically adr9itted all that
was alleged in the case. He stated that
he had sold the warrant unGer issue of
Aug II. 1904. To Councilman J. G. Nye-
He Was then asked if he did not know
that there were 10 funds IN the treas
uTy Rt that time. to which he replied that
ne did not know. One of the most i'm
portant admissions made by the witness
was that he did not serve on the board
OF equalization and review during 1905,
. but claimed that he had rendered ser
vices to a committee of inspection of the
general improvements that were being
made, this service amounting to at least
three or four days; that he had also
served In a committee on the revision of
the city ordinances, which occupied sew
eraI hours each day for practically weeks
and that the work had not Vet been con-
cluded- He said that he accepted the war
rant for SlC0J0 on the same conditions
that he mad accepted the others, believ-
ing that he was entitled to IL.
Chambers stated that his attention was
first called TO the resolution under which
the warrant had been granted for ser
vices on the board OF equalization and
review after the money had been col
lected and shat he, short time there
after. returned the money TO the city
treasurer. He was then asked if he had
any intent 10 defraud when he accepted
the warrants. and he said that at no
time had he felt that he was doing
wrong under the adViceS he had received.
This referred TO the advice he had re-
ceived from the mayor
His Visit to skeen.
In response to a question as TO why
he had gone TO the office of Attorney J.
y. Skeen, the acCuseT, on the night Of
Feb. Q. and said that he was much con-
CeTned about the suit pending. and that
he considered that he and Skeen were
good friends. both being engaged in
church and Sunday school work together
He thought that he thought he could go
and talk to him as brother to brother.
He said further that ne was DESTROYS Of
knowing why Skeen should single him
out and hold him up TO public ridicule
he had never done him any injury.
He claimed that Skesn said that he had
been driven to take the action by the
newspapers ard in stating what particu-
lar newspaper. he said the Standard of
ogden. This paper is managed by ex-
Mayor William Glasmann.
He admitted asking Skeen if he could
consistently put stop to the DrOseCu-
ton. but Skeen said he wished he could
B=ef nd 30 hnan al ofr but
that he would have to investigate. They
then brought Up the question of special
boards in the council and if il was con-
Sidered necessary for all or only part OF
the committee to sign the report and wit
ness replied that il seemed TO be the rule
for only a majority to sign them. They
then switched the Questioning and asked
if Skeen had referred during the inter
view mentioned had referred 10 his en-
nifty for ex-mayor William Glasmann.
and witness replied that he did not even
........ .. IN. NM. ...... hun. ....-.I..