The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-06-09
JUDGE ARMSTRONG !
NOW HAS THE Case
Argument Made on One Phase
of Suit Directed at Com
miSSiOnerS.
BOOTH CONTENDS PRICE
WAS NOT EXCESSIVE
Commissioners Not Evadins
Law Now, but Arc Solicit
Ing Bids.

The county commissioners demurrer
TO County Attorney Job L. Lyon s. sy;.
to compel the commissioners TO retnrn
to the county treasury $5727.50 psid
the lntcrmouutaiu Republican without
warrant for printing the 1905 delin-
quent tax list is now in the hands Of
Judge George G.. Armstrong Of the
Third District court. The demurrer was
argued before him at 10 Clock Tuaa
day morning. after which ii was taken
under advisemcnt. An carly decision
is expected. and if il is adverse TO tbe
| commissioners II is not we'll seen how
they can successfully answer then.
Hiram T.. Booth. president Of the
beneficiary of the bare faced raid on the
county treasury, represented the com
mIssloners and their bondsmen, while
County Attorney Lyon represented the
county, Mr.. Booth was not any too
clear in his argument, but attempted to
lay the bla me for the failure to ad-
vertisc for bids for the printing on the
tax list onto the county auditor In
asmuch as the auditor bad failed Ia
advertise for bids there was nothing
for the comm issloners 30 do but 10
have the list printed anyway, More
over. Mr., Booth contcndrd, the statutes
do not contemplate the advertising for
bids on the tax list. ri
Another Assertion.
Another preposterous assertion of Mr..
Booth was that fhe price. $5127.50, was
not excessive and The paper could have
recovered on the merits of the claim,
Therefore. inasmuch as the auditor had
failed 70 advertise for bids, leaving
the commissioners nothing to do but
order the printing of the list anyway
the county cannot recover from the
commissioners Mr.. Booth saws He also
laid some stress upon another case not
In point, that of Auerbach against the
county TO recover for furniture fur
Dished the county. In this case the
court held that although ore OF the
commissioners was pecuniarly interested
IN the sale the firm could recover
County Attorney Lyon, in reply to
Mr.. Booth, coDtended that inasmueh
AS no advertisement for bids for ths
printing of the list had been made, the
payment Of the money 10 the Repub,
bean was without warrant or authority
of law. The failure Of the auditor
TO advertise for bids was no excuse for
violating the law. declared Mr. LYON
That the other county officers do their
duty is one of the duties or obligations
Of the commissioners. he asserted. The
county auditor had had nothing to do
= I.-DU4
the Republican,, Mr.. Lyon pointed out.
and the commissioners have no right to
make any such payments as this until
they have been passed upon by the
auditor.
There With Goods
Mr. Lyon paid no attention to the
fact that the price was exorbiiant fur
ther than 10 say that there is more
than monetary mattcr in consider
alton in the bringing and prosecuting
OF this action. ''If the commissioner
may. by not advertising for bids, pay
$4,000 for this work this year, what is
TO prevent them from paving $4,000
next vear?'' he queried 1.-The law
is too plain on the subject he de-
clared. following which he cited nu-
meTous authorities in support of his
contention. ~
In connection with the suit it is in
teresting to note that the commissions
ers are now publishing notice in the
beneficiary Of this raid upon the conn
tv treasury calling for bids for the
county printing, including the 1909 de-
hnonent tax list. The advertisement
is signed by County Auditor Frank
Heginbotham and may he found in a
remote part of the paper. Further in
formation as to the character of the
printing will be furnished by The au-
dltor. the notice sets out The county,
II is further set forth, reserves the right
to reject any or all bids.
All of which is eloquent evidence
that the county attorneys suit has
gwen good moral tone to the COM
missioner s acts, Just now, at least.