A County Treasurer Refuses to Pay a Single Warrant

Whatcom, Feb. 17.—Special. The order of the two Populist commissioners directing the auditor to make all warrants issued for the payment of bills allowed during 1894 payable out of the tax receipts from the 1894 levy, now being collected, calls forth a storm of indignant protests from the holders of old warrants and business men generally. There was a lively time at the meeting of the commissioners yesterday afternoon when County Treasurer Purdy very emphatically notified them that he will pay no warrants whatever until this most unusual proceeding of the commissioners is passed upon by the supreme court. He declares that he will not even pay school warrants, no matter how large the money may be in the school fund to the credit of the districts upon which the warrants are drawn.

A rather amusing circumstance in connection with the new mandate occurred yesterday, which, by the way, was the feast day upon which taxpayers could take advantage of the 2 per cent rebate. W. H. Fouts, the pioneer merchant and a large property owner, called to pay his taxes, which amount to over $500. He took with him some ten warrants, amounting to $350, which had been called for payment and upon which interest had ceased some time ago. Of course he had a right to expect they would be paid, but they were not, for the treasurer referred them to the two Populist promulgators of the new order and asked if he would receive due credit for them in his statement if he paid them, and being informed that he would not, he returned them with his compliments to Mr. Fouts, who is himself a Populist and frequently discourses in picturesque language upon the great subject of reform.

At the meeting Friday it developed that there is no opinion of the county attorney on file relative to the arbitrary order of the day before, and the treasurer demanded that he be furnished opinions in writing upon that and a number of other questions. The commissioners, finding the treasurer firm in his refusal to pay warrants issued in conformity with their order—in fact to pay any warrants whatever until the question is determined—finally decided to submit an agreed case to be taken to the supreme court and to allow the treasurer $175 for an attorney. It was decided also to submit an alleged over-issue case, the Populist commissioners contending that the county had exceeded its legal limit of indebtedness, while the treasurer denies that such is the case, his argument being that an indebtedness incurred on a valuation of cannot be invalidated by reducing the assessment. The present floating indebtedness of the county amounts to $160,000, of which amount $60,000 is in warrants bearing 2 per cent interest, $40,000 being bridge warrants issued prior to the reduction of the assessment in 1892. The Populist commissioners have made no provision for redeeming these warrants but propose to make all claims allowed by them take precedence over all prior obligations. Commissioner Gillette, Republican, vigorously denounces the order and pronounces it little short of attempted repudiation. Should the board be sustained by the supreme court there would be no funds available for the payment of warrants now outstanding except such as may come from delinquent taxpayers.