The Coconino sun. (Flagstaff, Ariz.) 1898-1978, 1915-09-10

I advised you that l could not proceed
as desired, but would require ample
time, perhaps extending through two
or three weeks, or more. This was
evidently unsatisfactory to you, as
upon the following day was asked if
| had any objections to the appoint
ment of Mr.. Charles Jones, as ASST
stant Town Attorney, to which | re-
piled l had not. Mr.. Jones received
the appointment, and proceeded very
energetically to take the desired ac-
ton. As Mr.. Jones did not consult
with me concerning any of the steps
he was taking, ! assumed that you
had taken the matter out of my hands
and committed it solely to the charge
of Mr.. Jones. Under the crcum-
stances, | considered rendering my re-
signation as Town Attorney, and was
only prevented from so doing, by
reason of the pendency of an appeal
in the case of Mrs. McMillon against
the Town, and while felt then, as
now, that there was no possible chance
for such an appeal to be successful,
| desired to remain in charge of the
case, partly as a matter of personal
pride, and partly in the interest of
the taxpayers of the Town, expecting
that a motion which | intended pre-
pairing and filling, based upon tech
nical grounds, would cause the Su-
preme Court, without the delay Incl
dent to the consideration Of the case
by that Court upon the merits.
Subsequent to Mr.. Jones' appoint
ment, | was not consulted regarding
these matters until after your receipt
of Judge Bordwell's letter advising
the contractor in substance, that in
addition to several Irregularities in
the procedure, he had discovered at
least one jurisdictional defect, to-wit:
Failed to publish Notice of Inten-
ton, as required by law, which rem
dered void all subsequent proceed
ings,"
when some of your number asked my
opinion as to such alleged defects, or
whether action could be successfully
maintained against the contractor in
failing to comply with his contract,
and against the Clerk and his bonds
men for having surrendered to the
contractor certified check which you
had accepted instead of the bond re-
quired by law. After carefully inv
vestigating these matters, | advised
| you, at an informal meeting held at
my office, that | considered the pro-
ceedings absolutely void by reason of
| the jurisdictional defect referred to,
and that, therefore, the contract en-
tered into was equally void and that
no action could be maintained against
the contractor, or the Clerk and his
bondsmen. l, further, advised you
that, in my opinion, in order to pro-
ceed with the contemplated improve
ments it would be necessary for you
to begin proceedings anew.
Evidently my advice was unsatis-
factory to you, as you shortly after
passed the resolutions above quoted,
which, in the light of the foregoing
| f,,+c thinl, pnnctftrto nnnnl,,y;
proof that you desired to shift re-
sponsibility, for results induced solely
by your own impatience and lack of
conservative judgment, from your
shoulders to those of Mr.. Jones and
myself.
With this communication have
delivered to your Clerk transcript
of the testimony in the case of Mrs.
McMillon against the Town, and also
drafts submitted to me by Mr.. Camp
of the proposed conveyances from the
Atchison Railroad Company to the
Santa Fe Land & Improvement Com
pany, from the Santa Fe Pacific Rail
road Company to the Santa Fe Land
& Improvement Company, and from
the Improvement Company to the
Town, concerning which l have pre-
pared, and was about to submit to
you, report with recommendations,
at the time Of the passage of the
| ahoya n, ant aI resolution hIIf u,bi oh
| did not submit in view of your ac-
ton. Respectfully,
EDWARD NJ. DOE.
| F0RFST H0MFSTFAnS