Year: 1872

-


Had your correspondent, made few inquiries
in relation to the subject of his communication,
he would perhaps have been able to have OBJ
tanned little more information in relation to
1t, than be has made known in that article
and then again if he had fairly and squarely
presented the whole facts of the case to the
public, our Hon. Board would have stood in
a better and fairer light, than they may or
might stand should his statement remain un-
contradicted or unexplained. os


For the double purpose therefore, of reliev-
ing the probably over burdened mind of one
who may on that account be sIeepiess s'Tax
Payer" and of allowing the community to-
see both sides of the picture, and then tojudge
fairly and impartially OF the entire transaction,
will attempt to give them what believe to be
the true history of the case, which is as fol-
lows: A petition signed by numerous citi-
zens, residents and taxpayers, of township No.
six was presented to the Hon. Board of Su-
pervisors, asking them to construct or cause
to be constructed, a bridge over Big Cow
Creek, at point near the grist Mill of Messrs
Wilkinson and Ross.


The first and main ground on which they
asked for the building of the bridge was, the
great necessity for a bridge at that point, it
being right in the heart of the farming lands
of that vicinity and of the county, and the


Creek being stream which is not fordable


for great portion of the winter season.


As second ground they urged that they


were justly entitledto it, inasmuch as they were


the largest tax payers in the county, township


No. six containing more taxable property than


any other township in the county; and that


heretofore they had caused the county no con-


siderable expense in the way of criminal trials


or otherwise. That we on this side of the river


made most of the expense, ofwhich they were


obliged to pay their portion, and for which
they had received nothing in return, except


sort of Coon log bridge over Little Cow Creek.


But be that as it may, suffice it to say that


they made showing which compelled the


Board to acknowledge the justice of their


claims, and thereupon their petition was grant


ed, and the Board advertised for sealed pro-


posals for the construction ofthe bridge, which


was within the power and jurisdiction of said


Board.


On the sth day of July last the Board met


to open the sealed proposals which had been


received up to that date. Upon opening said
proposals it was found that only one bid had


been received, which was that of Messrs.


Stevenson and Fender, for the sum of $2990
in Gold coin or its equivalent in county war
rants. Messrs. Stevenson and Fender were
present and then informed the Board that they
would take and consider $4,000 in County
warrants on the general fund as the equivalent
for $1,000 in Gold coin.


1t will readily be seen that at those figures
the county warrants were estimated at sixty
cents on the dollar. Therefore the Board had
the alternative of rejecting or accepting their
bid as it then stood, or of rejecting or accept
ing it at $4,000, in warrants on the General
fund. They concluded to accept of it as it
stood, thinking no doubt that they could do
better than to pay for services rendered the
county in warrants at sixty cents on the dol
lar, The parties were required to and did en-
ter into bonds, for the faithful performance of
their contract, and in due time the bridge was
built, and accepted, and the parties presented
their claims for payment. Up to that time
warrants on the general fund readily COM
manded from sixty-six and two-thilds to sew
eeiy cents ON the dollar in cash. But all at
once panic seemed to come over the Scrip
Buyers of Shasta and no one was to be found
who would pay over sixty-two and one half
cents on the dollar for it. The Bulls and
Bears had evidently met in council and the
fiat went forth something in this wise, Where
as, the Hon. Board of Supervisors have enter
ed into contract whereby they are bound
to pay in gold coin, or its equivalent in coun-
ty warrants, and Whereas said Board have no
gold to pay and must issue warrants, and
Whereas we are the only ones who at present
know that fact and have the money to buy
said warrants, therefor be it Resolved, that
we will not pay over sixty-two and one half
cents on the dollar for said warrants. Conse-
quently the Board after waiting for some two
or three days trying to find buyers at an ad-
vance on that price, were at last compelled to
issue to Messrs Stevenson and Fender the sum
of S4T84 in warrants on the general fund as
the equivalent for $1,000 in gold coin.


That the action of the Board was strictly
according to the letter of the law it is not our
purpose or intention to assert. But what we
do maintain is, that no wrong or fraud has
been done to the county or its tax payers, but


that on the contrary the Board by their action
saved the county S2l6 in warrants, as it did
not take as much into that sum, as was esti-
mated by Messrs. Stevenson and Fender, to
make S2990 in gold The only objection then
which can be made to the action of the Board,
must be to the contract if any substantial OBJ
jections exist.


After having made the contract to ''pay
S2990, in gold coin" it would have been an
outrage upon justice to have compelled the
contractors to accept $1,000, in warrants drawn
on the general fund, as the equivalent thereof.
The Tax payers of Shasta county expect its
financial Board, TO economize for it, but |
opine that they do not expect it, in Difference
to technical objections, to violate the spirit of
fair dealing and justice. Tax payer speaks of
unjust discrimination between Scrip holders
this scrip was obtained by virtue of a well
understood contract that it was to be received
in payment of services rendered.


Stevenson and Fender rendered their services
to the county upon the specific understanding, |
that they were to receive $3.50 in gold coin or
its equivalent Will Tax payer say that S2990
in scrip is the equivalent of $4,000 in gold coin;
if not, is not his imputation of unjust discrim-
nation unjust to our Hon. Board; Every
debtor is, from the unfortunate necessities of
that situation, sometimes the prey of capital
lists. 1t is the misfortune of Tax payer and his |
fellows that Shasta county is in that unfortu-
nate condition, aHdas long as she so remains,
every intelligent man must realize that she
will be subject to speculation upon her paper.


To sum up-the Board being vested by the |
Statute with the discretion, in justice to the |
Taxpayers of township No. six, concluded that
the bridge should be built after making ev-
cry effort to obtain the cheapest proposals for
its construction, ascertained that they could
get the work done for $4,000 in gold coin or
$4,000 in script, the Board elected to pay in
gold coin, and by so eleeting as the result
proves saved the comfy S2l6 of Indebtedness. |


Technically considered the action of the
Board may be subject to some objection, but |
think that the Tax payers of Shasta county
will conclude upon a fair investigation, that
our Board has in this case, rs is usual withity
used their best endeavors to promote the in
lerests of the county.