The Lynden tribune. [volume] (Lynden, Wash.) 1908-current, 1912-09-05


chairman of the committee. tSee pages
As and AZ, Wash. State Bar Ass n,
1870 The incoming president was
to appoint the other members. For
some reason this committee was not
appointed by the president, Mr.. c. W.
Howard. until after the next session
of the legislature had convened. On
Jan. I3, 1911, received from the sec
rotary of the State Bar Association
letter advising me that Richard SAKE
Jones, W. r. Gay, Seattle; Walter
Christian. Tacoma, and John X. Mitch
ell Olympia, were the other members
of the committee.
The legislature then being in ses-
sion, there was no time to prepare
the measures contemplated for re
vision of the judiciary system. Nc
meeting of the committee was called
and, as far as | know. no member
ever appeared before the legislature.
Respectfully,
JEREMIAH NETERER.
That Boulevard Case
Judge Kellogg does not deny that
he appointed f. J. Cleary as Comn'is-
sioner TO make the assessment in the
Boulevard matter after Cleary's name
had been suggested TO Judge Hardin
and he had refused to appoint him and
said he did not want any suggestions,
and he would not appoint Gle AIRY any
how because he owned property near
the improvement and would ne inter
ested in the manner OF leyying the
assessment. kellogg tries 10 protect
himself. however, by saying that no
one contested the assessment. He
should know that the : .perty o%n-
ers did seek advice of IL firm of attor-
neys in the City Of Bel'inghaEl and
they found out that the assessment
could not be attacked Oh any other
ground than that Of fraud and mis-
takes. tud further that they would
come b;for, the san,s jude. KcliosJ,
who had all cinted Clear icy sab
mitted TO what they believed was an
injustice Is there anything in this
that relieves kellogg from the respoI-
sibility of having appointed the com
missioner suggested to him? After
an assessment is once made il is al
most impossible 10 get ii changed.
kellogg denies many things that he
has not been accused of. This is evs
IDENTIFY for the purpose of getting
around the admission of indisputabie
facts and for the further purpose of
throwing dust in the eyes of the peo-
pie.
Root-Gordon Affair
He admits that he was appointed
and served upon the executive COM
mittee of the State Bar Association,
receiving the appointment from one
c. W. Howard, president of the State
Bar Association. He says, however,
that he attended no meetings and that
the Root-Gordon matter was never be-
fore him That was the method OF
whitewashing and the process is usu-
ally accomplished in this manner
They appointed him on the committee
for the purpose of having him do moth
ing and he made good. The sins of
omission are greater than those Of
commission. He pleads guilty to this
charge.
Hanford-
The statement was made that Kel.
logg did not vote no on the Hanford
resolution. kellogg's answer is an
acknowledgment of the truth of this
statement or at least he does not deny
this fact. The letter he wrote, how
ever. to the attorney at Seattle, If
YOU read it closely, shows that Judge
Kellogg desired that man to tell you
that he voted no. He said:
You know how | voted on this reso-
luton at its final passage when in
face he knew he had not voted at all
On its final passage. Read this letter
again and note that the Seattle attor-
ney had too much manhood and integ-
rirV n fn1lnVr a y1aislaa1inu
lion in kellogg's letter to him.
Kellogg voted aye to table the reso-
luton and did not vote no on the res
olution, which shows clearly that he
side-stepped the matter. Remember
Hanford, Howard and kellogg are
supported by the same corporation
clique
Salary Grab
In the published record ii was claim
ed that Kellogg lobbied for double
salary before the Senate Committee
of 1911. He says in his reply that this
is absolutely false; then says he did
it because Judge Neterer favored II.
which is not a fact (see Neterer' 5
letter foregoing) then later on uses
the following language:
Il did appear before the Joint ju
dietary committee of the Senate al
the 1911 session of Legislature"
He admits that he was a lobbyist
for double salary. He says, however
that if the law had been passed, h.
would not have received double salary
until reelection, and quotes from the
constitution to prove this fact He
knew then that he expected to be a
candidate for reelection. Do yov
think il was entirely unselfishness OIL
his part when you find that he was the
| first one 10 file this year for the nom
ination, even at the old salary of 81
per day of five hours, and from his
| present attitude it would appear that
he is extremely anxious to retain the
Job. Judge Neterer's attitude in rela
ton TO the matter of salary for judges
of the Superior Court is best explain
ed in his own words as noted in his
communication preceding. He never
did favor a $4,000 salary under the
present judiciary system or for &
Judge not worth the money.
Local Option