River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1921-12-15
REPLY TO HADD0W

Replying to Mr.. Haddow'S state.
ment In last weeks paper: The re.
quest he speaks of was attached to
his expense account and came before
the auditing committee which has
nothing whatever to do with salaries
The committee and the public well
know that attorneys always make
much on the technical point of the re-
moval or alterations of records and
Mr.. Haddow, being an attorney. the
audit committee all felt that he ought
to know where he wanted his appeal
for increased salary filed.
After the accounts We're passed on
by the audit committee, they were re-
turned to the files from which they
originated, and so far as this commit
tee was concerned the matter was
closed.
.ne expense account of Mr.. Had
dow was very much larger than any
ever filed before by Pierce County
District Attorney, and the committee
mindful of the taxpayers, discussed
long and earnestly the advisability of
allowing all that was claimed.
Mr. Haddow sought to assist the
committee in deciding by handing
them a supplementary or explanatory
statement of why his expense account
was so large. After due consideration
of all the information at hand the
committee allowed Mr.. Haddow's
claim in full, so that he can have no
real grievance from that score.
When the salary committee was in
session the writer did not consider 1t
a part of his duty or right to go to
the files of the auditing committee
and detach anything therefrom, and
for reasons aforestated and being
only ordinary laymen it would not be
expected of us to know as much as
our worthy District Attorney.
Further, when the question of sal
aries was put before the salary COM
mittee there was not the most perfect
harmony on the question, and one
member, who would not concur in
maintaining the present salary
brought in minority report (which
he. had a perfect right to do if he dis
agreed with the other members) II
which he recommended reduction ir
the salary of the District Attorney
which, of course, could not take eft.
feet until after another election.
The majority of the salary commit
tee did their duty as they saw it to
be, remembering all the time the
ovelburdened, taxpaying public of
Pierce County, asking for retrench-
ment wherever possible. We did not
consider it fair to the District Attor-
ney to reduce his salary and still less
fair to the public to increase it.
In view of these obstacles the ma
jority of the committee felt that in
retaining the present salary they
were entitled to some consideration
from the District ATTORNEY. But this
is only link in long experience in
which we have found it impossible to
please everybody.
We do not question Mr.. Haddow's
right to resign. if for any reason ne
is dissatisfied with the office. His at
tack on the committee and the County
Board. while they were irving to dc
their best for their constituents, is
wholly uniustified. We have no de-
sire to extend this controversy, or I'M
pose upon a ong-suffering editor
or inflict on the rood nature of the
reading public and trust it may not be
necessary for us to appear again il
these columns with any further COM
mnnications.
The proceedings of the County
Board will soon be published ono
readers may decide from them fol
themselves.
r Severance