Year: 1872




the county, this tax was simply donated
by the State toward sustaining the coun-
ty government. Yet the collection was
enforced by virtue of a law of the State.
These Supervisors who said to Mr.. Jack
son, you must collect this tax, had the
tight to do it. But still, in acting upon
orders from headquarters, who is respon-
sible ? If you have superintendent, and
you instruct him, and he orders his sub
ordinate to do something, who is the re-
sponsible party, the subordinate, the SUI
perintendent, or yourself? In this in
stance the order is directed from the
State, and it alone is responsible. claim
there is matter of justice involved in
this question, and believe I.have inves-
tigated the case thoroughly, and am act
uated by no wrong feeling, and that the
bill should be passed. In the first place
when it came up l will admit that was
opposed to violation of the law in any
case, unless it is necessary. l never want
to see, as the gentleman remarks, State
rights to come in conflict with the gener-
al laws of the country. But to come to
the point, that is the very thing this
case illustrates. The case illustrates the
fact that this United States enactment
must operate. Must that man, who is
an humble servant of this State, illustrate
that | have too much confidence in the
sense of justice and the intelligence in
this body to believe that they will re-
fuse to consider the claims of tho person
named in the bill.


Mr.. SPENCER-In some regards agree
with Mr.. Cooper. There perhaps is some
abstract justice in this matter. But l
disagree with him both as to the manner
and the amount. ! certainly do not OPP
pose the compensation of person who is
compelled to assume an attitude, to as
sumo position, and to take the altera-
tive of one or the other of two courses.
But it strikes me that the Board of Su-
the breach. The State certainly had
nothing to do with influencing the course
of jackson, further than the spreading
upon the statute books years before of Il
directory law, which has been initiated
against by the superior law, and that was
certainly not dictated in the strict sense
of the term to a particular official. The
local officials who directed him to pur-
sue the provisions of the one law in pref
erence to the other ought, | apprehend,
to be the persons to go to the rescue.
the committee explain the evidcncc-if
vote at all in favor of this compensation
which the committee that investigated
this claim will be able to fu rnish us.
find that there is no report of that kind.
1t does not appear from the file, and |
certainly am entirely in ignorance wheth-
er or not jackson has suffered pecuniarily
to the extent of $4,000. Now, cannot
well understand how Mr.. Jackson could
suffer to the extent of $1,000 from being
taken to San Francisco from remote
part of the State, and fined in nominal
sum, as understand he was fined. His
attorneys fee and travelling expenses GER
tainly could not have, at the most, he
would have had to pay, and l apprehend
both these items together would scarcely
amount to $4,000. | think it would be
i'll advised to call up this matter before
having an expression Of the committee in
reference to it.


Mr.. DE HAVEN said the Chairman
of the Committee on Claims (Mr. MotD
was absent, and he had all the evidence
that was produced before the committee.
He (Mr. De Haven) was not in possession
of all of it, but the history in the main
had been pretty fully given here. The
views entertained by the last speaker
we're the same rs those entertained by a
large majority of the committee. Con-
sidering, however, the peculiar circum-
stances Of the case, and the fact that n
number Of gentlemen wished to speak
upon the matter TO urge the claim, the
committee yielded to the request to re.
port the bill back without recommends
ton. The whole case has been correctly
stated by Mr.. Tinnin.


Mr.. COOPER said Jackson was arrested
twice, and his creditors becoming alarm
ed attached his property, and the conse-
quence was that he lost almost every
thing he had. The committee unani-
mously agreed that he sustained this
amount of loss, and more.


Mr.. HARVEY thought the members of
the committee were not very harmonious
in their statements.


Mr.. DE HAVEN said five OF the COM
mittee we're against the bill and two in
favor Of it.


Mr.. ALDRIcH said the committee were
unanimous as TO the amount, but did not
all agree as to the justice Of the claim.


Mr.. LEE moved to substitute 81 500 for
5000. There seemed TO be some just de-
mand here and he was willing to give
the man enough to cover all legitimate
expenses and nothing more.


Mr.. TINNIN said no man could go
through two trials like that and pay his
attorneys fees for $500. The Chair
man of the judiciary Committee would
sustain him in the assertion. Lawyers
of ability could not be got to work for
nothing.


Mr.. LUTTRELL said Mr.. jackson was
instructed by the Attorney General OF
the State as well as by the Supervisors to
collect the tax.


Mr.. TURNER believed that the case