The new era., 1910-11-03
Political Stories Revised

In view of the many false or erron-
eous statements and impressions that
have gained current circulation in the
campaign now ending with reference Co
the present comfy administration. l
have been asked to state briefly the
position of the Board of Commissioners
and myself personally as regards these
and other matters of possible public in
terest.
In the first place am Democrat and
expect to vote the State Democratic
ticket in SO far as 1 judge it to be a
good ticket: also believe am a good
Democrat when ssy shall support
the County Republican. ticket almost
wholly, for believe it is a Democrats
first duty to stand for the good of the
civic organization in case his party has
not lived up to the standards it should
follow. Nor am alone in this view for
many other Democrats have expressed
themselves in much the same way to
me. believe that the Republican par
ty in this county has carefully weighed
its responsibility; has recognized its
golden opportunity to give the county
right start into the future,- and has
done its uttermost TO name, regardless
of party. ticket in which the voters
might place trust. Regardless of party.
believe we should all support the Re-
publican endeavor.
That the voters may better understand
thesituation. Ishall take up oneby onethe
charges and complaints against the
present county administration, which, l
am informed are being most freely made
use of by our opponents. AS to the
charge that the Commissioners, have
been granting rebates on taxes for polit-
ical purposes:
lst, A lsrge part of the rebate decis-
ions came into public notice this fal
because the Boasd of Equalization sits
during September, as required by law,
and all tax adjudication matters natur-
ally come up at that time-
2nd. Every rebate gr anted during the
entire year, with two exceptions, was
due to error or carelessness, or both. on
the part of the County Assessor. =
Bird. OF the two exceptions noted, the
the voucher in one case was o. K. d by
Sam E. Swirs, Assessor, The other re-
bate was due to the mistake of party
in paying taxes in both Larimer and
jackson counties.
4th. A number of rebate cases, and
perhaps some of the largest, are ye
pending. and have been placed in the
hands of the Assessor for adjustment.
1t is regrettable that the Assessor is so
busy that he cannot give more attention
to these really important matters.
5th/ When charges of this seft are
made it is right that they should be
specific The Commissioners invite
anyone to bring forward aSsingle case in
which rebate was granted without good
AMI sufficient cause; a single case, in
deed, in which it was not evena neces-
sity to grant rebate, if we-consider right
and iustic,, as essential to good govern
ment.
AS to the charge that the Board did not
deal fairly with the County Judge:
There is no lawof which we are aware thai
paruits the Board of Commissioners to
grant pay to officers except as the law
itself provides for such pay. The Stat
utes provide that the County Judge
shall be paid from the fees he earns only.
But these did not satisfy our Judge, and
at the close of 1909 he put in voucher
to the Commissioners for $685. 85 besides.
and in excess of, the fees he had earned,
and based his claim on ceptain sections
in the statutes which appeared to give
tho Judge the right to emoluments OF
office up to $500. per annum whether it
was earned or not. That is, it the fees
of the offic, did not come to $500. the
balance of the amount should be made
good by the Commissioners
After careful consideration, and legal
advice, the Board decided that the
Judge conld be p.id from fees only, and
that tile Board had no. right to grant
him salary in excess of fees earned Tie
Judge was not satisfied, took the matter
to the District Conrt, aud the Court
sustained the position of the Commis
sioners. The Board has no quarrel with
the Judge for having the legal point
tested if it was deemed necessary. The
Board expresses itself as perfectly will
ing to grant the balance due, if it was
shown to be due 1t fails to appear
wherein the Board dealt unfairly with
the Judge.
But another matter oals for attention
here, How about the fairness of the
Judge? The claim he put in was for
$583 SO in excess of fees, and this for a
period of abont seven months-the life