The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-03-15
GLASMANA HAS
DIFFICULT TASK
Making Desperate Effort to
Find Something DiScredlt-
able in Richards Career.

William Glassman and his twin pa
pers. the Standard and Examiner, are
apparently having desperate time
finding ground upon which to DEFEND
the libel suit brought by c. c. Rich
ards against them something over
year ago. They have spent the year
raking the county records with a nne-
tooth comb to find some Irregular or
dishonest act, but when all has oeen
scrutinized most carefully they are
unable to find a single item, and SO by
INSTRUMENTATION and falsehood they
have filed their publications and added
Misrepresentation of law to facts
found in an effort to justify their at
titude before the public The follow
ing is an eDitome of the acts charged
as being irregular and dishonest;
1. That in 1877 Mr.. Richards, who
was but Is years of age at the time
induced Joseph Stanford, who was
then an active merchant, and IN the
very prime of life. to become a candl-
date for county recorder. and when
elected to appoint him (Richards2 his
chief deputy. and permit him to con-
duct the affairs of the Office. 1t seems
that Mr.. Stanford was elected and ap-
pointed Richards his deputy, but
whether he paid the deputy a part or
the whole of the fees for his services is
a matter of no concern to the public,
as the law permitted the recorder to
make such disposition of them as he
thought best. There was no law in the
territory upon that subject, and no law
was violated thereby.
3. Mr.. Richards is charged, While
county clerk, with having presented to
the county court, for allowance, claims
that had not been sworn to by him,
and of permitting the claims of others
to be presented in the same way.
When it is remembered that Mr.. Rich
ards resigned the clerks Office on May
1, 1888, and that until one month later
June u there was no law even au-
thorizing, much less requiring, the We
rification of such claims, it will readf-
~ be seen that there was neither dere-
LECTION of duty nor dishonesty in this
matter.
g. 1t is charged that on some day,
the date not being given, the county
court appropriated SO to Mr.. Richards
for making trip into or through Og-
den canyon. If such is the case they
had a legal and moral right to COM
pensate Mr. Richards either for the
livery expenses incurred in making the
trip or for his own time, if the court
sent him there on county business-for
it is not suggested that his duties as
county clerk called him there. and
certainly he was legally entitled to
compensation for any other service re-
quested of him.
L. 1t is charged that Mr.. Richards
while county clerk, wrongfully re-
tanned fees that were collected by him
and that should have been paid into
the county treasury. Also that he re-
ceived $500 as additional compensation
oil rlx
| Until Jan. 4. 1896, the date of the ad-
mission of Utah as a state, the law
authorized all county clerks, recorders
and sheriffs to collect and retain GER
! tain specified fees as their compensa-
ton, and from which they were re-
quired to pay all of their deputies and
| employees. In the case of the county
| clerk the fees were for his services as
| clerk of the probate court, and the law
| authorized the county court to allow
him a salary for all services rendered
| the county in addition to his fees. No
one knows better than Mr.. Glasmann
| that during the whole life of the terri
| torial government, and until nearly
! eight years after Mr.. Richards re-
| signed his office the law expressly
! gave to all county clerks, recorders and
| sheriffs all feees collected by them.
And as to the whole defense, so called,
/ 1t is but tommyrot from beginning to
| end. In Glasmann'S malicious endeav-
or to place the $500 appropriation in the
same classification as the appropria-
lions made by him as mayor and for
| mer city councils to the coucilmen
then in office. the vital difference is
| kept from view. In the councilmen
cases the law absolutely required a
| fixing of the salaries prior to the cleo
ton, and then prohibited the council
| from increasing their own compensa-
| ton. In the case of Mr.. Richards he
| was not fixing his own CONDENSATION,
nor was there any law requiring the
| fixing of his salary before his election
or prohibiting any change afterward,
but the whole matter was left to the
county court. with full and unlimited
authority to fix and change the
amount as often as in their Judgment
the services rendered required such ac-
| ton.