The County Attorney Wrote His Own Case—and a Commissioner Objected

Montesano, Wash., July 22, 1893.

To John O. Wilson and O. Coy, commissioners of Chehalis county, Washington.

Gentlemen—It appears that on July 21, 1893, after the usual time of adjournment of the board, and at a time when I, a member of the board, was not in attendance, you signed a statement of facts in the matter of the sums of money retained by the county attorney and ex-county attorney in the delinquent tax cases. I take this means of entering an emphatic protest against your action, for the reasons following:

First—The county attorney of this county being an interested party to the extent of several thousand dollars, is not, under these circumstances, competent to impartially prepare a statement of facts in which his own and the interests of the taxpayers are equally represented.

Second—The following extract from said statement of facts does not recite the facts: 'Whereas, the prosecuting attorneys, in making reports to the county treasurer for moneys collected in said causes, have paid and accounted for to said treasurer the tax, penalty, interest, costs and expenses in each of said causes, but have retained the counsel fee in each case as fixed by court, claiming such fee as compensation for extra work in the foreclosure of said tax cases.'

Third—Part 2 of the report of the county attorney of March 30, 1893, recites that there was collected on lots, lands, etc., therein enumerated:

Amount received in settlement as per this report $7,100.06 Counsel fees in this report fixed by the court $652.00 $6,448.06

As only the sum of $1,993.60 was paid into the treasury in connection with said part 2 of Co. atty's report, I maintain that the prosecuting attorneys in making reports to the county treasurer for moneys collected in said causes have not paid and accounted for to said treasurer the tax, penalty, interest, cost and expenses in each of said causes, but have retained only the counsel fee in each case as fixed by the court.

Fourth—No provision has been made to have the county represented in this case by an attorney at law, other than the county attorney, and I insist that the pecuniary interest of said county attorney precludes the possibility of an impartial representation of the facts to the superior court in his own interests and the interests of the county.

Finally—To submit this matter to the superior court upon a statement of facts drafted by the county attorney without a representation before said superior court other than the county attorney, in a case in which the county attorney and ex-county attorney are defendants, is a sacrifice of the people's interests to the extent of many thousand dollars. A cause thus conducted can be decided but one way—in favor of the defendants.

Respectfully yours, Peter Autzen.