The producers news., 1930-10-24

Hass case disclosing a skeleton
expense of S2,749.69 which he COM
pared with the average yearly cost
of the office while Erickson was
in office. which included every I
imaginary charge that could be
made against the office. He then
said: What a cheap boy am l.
Can you downtrodden taxpayers
afford to vote against me-"
Bakewell did not say anything
about the expenses of the county
attorneys office for the fiscal year
beginning July l, 1928 and end
ing July 1, 1929 a half Of which
time he was in office. No he for
got that year though he did not
forget one year that Erickson was
IN: he forgot the year 1929 be
cause that year was not so good
He did not add even the two years
together and divide by two 70 get
an average as he did for the years
Erickson was IN because that
would not have showed up so well.
I True Erickson was IN office the
first half OF the 1929 fiscal year
but Bakewell could have taken the
expenses for the time between
Jan. 1, 1929 and June 80, 1929 and
he would have done it if it had
been TO his advantage but It was
not, so he did not; Bakewen was
not concerned about the truth, his
only thought was Of votes any
way ne could get them.
: When Bakewelrs attention was
{ called to the fact that his janitol
? expense his rent, his lights, his
: fuel, had not been charged TO hi:
! office he grinned and said, "Thai
' is court house expense and is nov
: charged to the court house" Wher
advised that during 1929 ther,
p were special attorneys fees in n,
Y sum of S9,S7S.53 and during 193l
:. the sum Of S1S,S96.50 charged
the county attorneys office, b,
; said, ''Very true but / was not re
4 sponsible for those expenses, the
were for the special attorney i
5 the Surety case and for this an,
d for that
II When Bakewell is in office he
d not responsible for the charges q
/ gainSt the office but when Erick
IS son is IN office then Erickson
7. responsible for all the charges 3
d gainst the office.
> Could anything be more absurC
7 more ridiculous, more false. Surel
e even Bakewell, stupid as he Is, ca
: not believe that anybody WI
y agree with such a contention.
= = The only thing Bakewen forg,
: TO do, was 70 charge all of II
: special attorneys fees during h
tenure of office TO Erickson'S tel
ure OF office, and included them
"A the total expense OF Erickson
- tenure. He just left that sum
- S2S,T75.0S out. Now that sum mu
s- be either charged against EricksC
!, or Bakewell, If not a prou,
- charge against Bakewen it mu
er be a proper charge against Eric
be son, II cannot just be left out
" consideration IN order to ma
= Bakewells tenure seem economic:
= Bakewel says and his publiei
~ man, l. S. Olsen says, Bakewen
- not responsible for any special 4
- tomeys fees, not even we suDDo
those paid Attorney Greer in :
al Wanda HaSS case, which was le
of out of the 1880 expense and .
,te on the 1881 expense In order
- make the showing OF S2,749.C
he which BakeweIl did IN his circul;
al Next year is not an election We;
In 1882 Bakewen can again fore
is- the 1881 expense and fix his 19
"a report.
Ike Bakewen then said in the cirS
ct lar which he sent out: ~Gra
lso BakeweI rsn the county attorne-
on office for SIX thousand eight IN
ie- dred dollars and Is cents less I
year than A. c. Erickson's aver
ng cost per year while he was cour
,n- attorney"
cts Now A. c. Erickson was
Of more responsible for Special !
7er torneys' fees than Grant Bakew,
md We admit Bakewen was not