The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1916-08-02
CRUISE ILLEGAL
SAYS U. S. COURT
CLEARWATER COUNTY WINS SUIT
BROUGHT BY BANK FOR PAY
MENT OF WARRANTS
Contract For Cruising Held to be a
Violation of Constitutional
Provision

In a decision handed down on Mon
day afternoon by Judge Dietrich OF
the United States district court, the
case of the Dexter Horton Trust &
Savings company Of Seattle vs.. the
county of Clearwater and Oren D.
Crockett, treasurer, was decided in
favor of the defendant county.
The suit, which involved the liabil-
ity Of the county to pay warrants to-
falling $44,072 for the cruising of its
timber lands for taxation purposes,
brought before the court the question
of the legality of county's action in
incurring an Indebtedness greater
than its revenue for one year. Other
representations were made by the
county in Withholding them being the
allegation that the county commits
sioners had entered "collusive and
corrupt agreement" with the cruising
contractor, that the warrants were,
therefore, wrongfully allowed, that
the contract was improvidently enter
ed into, that the warrants covered
claims not within the terms of the
cruising contract, that the subject was
Dot within the jurisdiction of the COM
board of commissioners was in VIOLA
ton of a constitutional provision.
Treasurer Refuses to Pay
The court held in it's opinion that
the commissioners had, in fact, acted
without full authority and that the
contract for cruising as carried out,
was made on an excessive rate, 121A
cents per acre.
The contract between the county
and M. G. Nease, cruising contractor,
was dated in 1914 and was for the
cruising of 5O3,997 acres of land.
Warrants honored by the treasurer of
the county after being allowed by the
commissioners. Treasurer Crockett
then, fearing that the full payment of
all warrants would be beyond legal
right, refused other warrants total
ling $44,O72. He also threatened to di-
vert to the discharge of later war
upon the plaintiff company, holding
the warrants, brought suit for an in
junction to prohibit him from carry
ing out such plan.
I do not attempt to review the evil
lence upon the issue of collusion or
conspiracy" said Judge DIETRICH in
the opinion. Though the view may |
be entertained that the commission
ers acted improvidently and were
wanting in vigilance and care, | am
convinced that they were not actu |
ated by corrupt motives.
Th0roughness Required
From an examination of the rec
ord made by the board of commission |
ers at the time the contract was let,
and a consideration of the manner I
in which it was gotten up, it is clear
that the board expected thorough |
and accurate cruise, and that Nease
convinced them that that was the kind
of a cruise he would make.
"In his written offer, which was
accepted, he proposed to make
very careful cruise, and, as we have
seen, the contract call for a care
full, complete and thorough cruise.
Can we say that the requirement of
was met by a cruise
made through the employment of the
cheapest and least thorough of all
methods, or that the re-
1uirements of carefulness and COM
oleteness were satisfied when the are
rs daily covered by the cruisers were
,f unusual, if not extraordinary, ex-
,ent? The question is suggestive of
,ut one answer.
"The fifth defense is that in part
he warrants cover claims for the
cruising of lands which are not with
n the terms of the contract. The
acts under this head are simple, and
practically undisputed. The contract
.alls for the cruising of the patented
imber lands of the county. Upon
he plats returned by Nease it is
hown that his claims covered, and
were issued for, a little
nore than 10000 acres of untimber-
ID lands, that is, embracing legal
of 40 acres or more Who'll
Y devoid of timber.
Power to Assessor.