The Ward County independent. [volume] (Minot, Ward County, N.D.) 1902-1965, 1910-09-08
Davis Makes Reply

the clerk of the district court of this
county disclose that this statement
Is false. That suit, If suit it may be
called, never cost the taxpayers OF
Ward county one cent. The facts
are that the board Of county commits
sioners, at its January 1907 meeting,
in fixing the salaries OF the county
officers, that the county auditor might
be advised as to the amounts such
officers were entitled to, in drawing
the salary warrants dor the different
officers, spread the following upon the
records Of the commits sioners proceed
ings: ...-
January meeting 1907. January
IS, 1907.
The board met at 2 o'clock p. M, as
per adjournment. Commissioner Will
lis in the chair, with all the members
present. Moved by Commissioner Alb
bolt and seconded by Commissioner
Elliott that the salaries of the county
officers be fixed as follows for the
year 1907:
County auditor, 100000 per an
mum.
Register of Deeds, 100000 per an
mum.
County Judge, $4,000 per annum
Clerk of district court, 100000 pei
annum.
States attorney, 100000 per an
mum.
County treasurer, $4,000 per an
mum. ;,....t;..; go Il s'
Superintendent OF schools, $2,ooo.oo
per annum.
Upon the strength Of this action Oh
the board, which was taken without
my knowledge, the county auditor
informed me that he would issue his
warrant for my salary, in accordance
with the amount fixed by the board
I declined to accept it and stated to
the auditor that I did not want it
until I should be positive that / was
entitled to it. There was difference
of opinion among good lawyers, as to
the proper construction Of the Sec
ton of the code relating to the sal
airy Of county Judges. That this sec
ton might be construed by the su:
preme court, and might be settled,
I agreed to pay the expenses of TAX
ing the matter before the court My
attorney, Mr.. John e. Greene, brought
an action to mandamus the county
auditor. MIR. Greene as my attorney,
and States Attorney MCGEE for the
county, stipulated the facts, and went
before the supreme court on the Ques'
ton Of law alone. I paid the costs
and the case did not cost Ward coun
ty or the taxpayers one cent. You
wfn note that Murphy calls It a
fraudulent claim, and yet the re-
cords Of the proceedings OF the coun'
ty commissioners snow that long prior
to the mandamus proceedings, the
board had fixed my salary at $1,000
per year more than had drawn, OF
ever attempted to draw. The whole
matter from beginning to end 10
matter OF record, and Murphy knew
the facts when he misrepresented the
matter in his take circuler, as well
as in his rawlings in the Reporter.
Murphy states that know no law
OF course this is unworthy Of reply
No Judge who performs his duty
when the performance Of It 1nterferee
with Murphyism, knows law from the
Murphy view point. The Judge who
knows law In ,Murphy's estimation ID
the one who will do his bidding
Murphy declares that he has spent
time and money to help a worthy
friend, to lower taxes, or bring about
a better condition OF affairs, and all
that without the return OF two cent
stamp. Patriotic, se1f4sacriflcine
Murphy. Again Murphy strays from
the record. Perhaps this patriotic 81
philanthropist will explain to the peo
pie how 1t happens that road tax re-
ceipts for about $4,000 were car
ried as cash by his County Treasurer
NJ. S. Williams, at the time he went
out of office, January I, 1905, and how
and why those receipts were paid
over to County Treasurer Mitchell by
Williams, and carried as cash by Mr.
Mitchell and In turn were turned ovel
by him to Treasurer Nedrud, and
which are at this time carried by Ned
rud as cash items. l have seen some
of those receipts in the treasurer'i
office within the past week and I an
Informed that these receipts were
deposited with County Treasurer vii
liams by the Great Northern Railwa,