Amador ledger., 1907-04-19
That Rejected Claim.

ceedings of the board of supervisors
this month, it was stated that a
claim of Sl1 presented by the ANA
dor Ledger, was cut down to So. The
rejection of SO of the bill calls for
some explanation on our part,
especially IN face of the statement in
one of our local contemporaries to the
effect that the SO reduction was for
an advertisement that was never
ordered. And the supervisors are
patted on the back for thus carefully
guarding the interests of the county.
We have no hesitation in declaring
that the rejectionsof the So claim for
advertising was the smallest business
the supervisors have INDUCED in for
a long time. Not only was it small,
but it was unjust. The claim was a
legitimate one, the service had been
performed, in accordance with legal
contract with county Official to that
end. The facts are as follows: In
October last we were instructed by
the then tax collector, L. K. Norman,
to insert notice to taxpayers, sett-
ing forth that state and county taxes
were then due and payable, when the
same would become delinquent, and
the peualty for delinquency. A
similar notice is published IN every
county, and the notice is usually
published up to the date of, the de-
linquency of the last instalment in
April. The law requires the tax
Collector to publish such notice for
at least two weeks. That was under
the old law when taxes were payable
in full before the last Monday in
Novembe and it is not presumed
that the tax collector is deprived of
discretionary power to publish longer
if he deems it be necessary. We
were told to publish right along. We
did so, as has been done in other
counties. L. x. Norman went out
of office in January, while the notice
was still running, and his authority
was sufficient for US to continue
publication. If his successor did not
want it so published, or wished the
notice to be changed to another
paper, it was his business to so in
form us, and order its discontlnuance
in the Ledger. He did not do so.
We had no authority to take that
notice out without such instruction,
any more SO than any other legal
notice. We would have rendered
ourselt liable for damages had we
assumed that authority. Imagine a
sheriff's sale or a summons being
dropped from the columns of a news
paper for no other reason than that
another individual than the one
ordering the same had stepped into
Office. AS matter of fact, we we're
publishing a sheriff's sale notice
when the change of county officers
took place, which involved thousands
of dollars. We had just as much
right to drop that notice on the
ground of a change of personality in
the sherltf's office as we had the
notice to taxpayers referred to. OF
course we did not do so. The notice
to taxpayers was published during
January and February, and the bill
therefor was presented to the super
visors at each monthly meeting there
after, and paid, as they had been pre-
viously. The supervisors and all
others concerned had the opportunity
of examining the claim at every meet
ing, but not word of protest from
them or anyone else, SO far as we
know, was heard. But at the April
meeting, the board, at whose instance
it is not for US to say, for we have no
definite knowledge on that point,
concluded that the bill for eight
dollars should be rejected. 1t gave
no reason for such action. 1t was
not said that the work had not been
ordered. 1t was not denied that the
publishing had been done. The only
reason that we can give for such
action, is that republican had been
succeeded by democrat in the
sheritf's office, and hence the Ledger's
bill should be rejected on general
principles. That is the history of
this peculiar transaction. The editor
stated to the board that he was not
particular, if they thought 1t right to
reject the claim, he would be satisfied.
lie wanted to see to what length they
would go IN this matter, and did
not think they would go to the
extreme of repudiating just and
legal claim solely on the ground Of
the incoming of a democratic sheriff.
Such is democratic ways in the far
west. 1t Is delectable sample of
business methods. The Ledger could
collect the bill by legal process, if
necessary. The amount involved is
not sufficient to warrant a law suit.
We should lose tenfoId more than the
amount involved in such a process.
Eut we do not propose to be ma
ligned. and misrepresented, as we'll
as refused the payment of just bill
against the county, and hence this
explanation.
Fr0Wn Down the Red Flag Business.
A significant move was made the