Democratic Sentinel, Volume 11, Number 50, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 January 1888 — COMMUNICATED. [ARTICLE]

COMMUNICATED.

Editor Sentinel: In the Republican of December Ist, 1887, appeared an article over the signature of “A Tax-Payer,” in which he indirectly aiTaigns Hon. Peter H. Ward for allowances made to counsel in llutherford trial.— He says “That the Board of County Commissioners contracted with M. F. Chileote to attend to all legal t usinosz. Mr . Butherfoid was too poor to hire on attorney to defend her, and her many friends woul. not “chip in.” Mr. Chileote could have made the defense as per contract with the Commissioner*. Instead of that Judge Ward appointed Messrs. Hammond & Austin, and they were paid S2OO. To even up the thing, when the friends of John Steele, the murdered man, sent for M. ±l. Walker, the court appointed him to assist in the prosecution and the county paid SIOO for that. H: also made Auditor Robinso agent to.distribute $139 more of the county’s money, to re-imburse friends of Steele who advanced money to hi. e °n attorney to prosecute Mrs. Rutherford. $439 00 of the people’s money unnecessarily expended.— The Wartena trial was the first of the kind anu the Sfcitz trial n xt. It is said Stitz deeded his farm to his wife and then swore he was too poor to employ a lawyer to defend him, when his family had between six and seven thousand dollars worth of proj. erty in their possession. If the Court made a single inquiry about the matter who knows of it? It is time this big leak was stopped.” j While it is right that every taxpayer in the county should ever be on the alert and use their influence in the direction of a reduction of taxes and against unlawful allowances by the Judge of the Court and Commissione's. Yet I fail to see wherein Judge Ward exoeeded his authority under the law.

“Tax-Payer” truly that M. F. Chilcote, the County Attorney, could have defended Mrs. Rutherford. This he did, and with good zed, industry and ability. But Judge Ward can not be bound by the Commissioners in the matter of the emplyment or counsel for ihe defense or prosecution of a poor person. The Court may appoint one or more attorneys to prosecute or defend a poor person. See R. S. 1881, sec. 260.) And :he Supreme Court of our S ate says that the County Commissioners can not control the appointment of an attorney in the Circuit Court, nor can the county avoid the payment 01 attorneys so appointed. \See 90 Ind., pages 1, 92,103,105, 311, and 13 other decisions on this point) True, $439 00 is a large amount of money to be paid in attorney’s lees. But a foul murder was charged as having been committed and a woman was on trial for the deed. It was necessary to hare able counsel on both sides, that all the facts connected with the tragedy might be brought out. The irial was had before twelve as good men as there is in Jasper county, and they said Mrs. Rutherford was not guilty as charged in the indictment. The trial was had, the money was paid by t county, and is at an end. “Tax-Payer” sa vs: “The Wartena trial was the first of the kind and the Stitz trial next” Conceding this fact, did Judge Ward eommit any great error in either case? I thinv not. He only did his duty under the statute. If Stitz transferred his property to his wife and then swore alsely, who was to blame for the expense to the county? Not Judge Ward, but the Legislature of Indiana for placing such a law bn our statutes. Again ho says “If the Court made a single inquiry about the matter, who knows of it?” Probably no one does know to a certainty; but let us inquire whether the money of the taxpavers is not frequently wrongfully paid out on allowances made by another Coart. It is report*

ed that the County Commissioners allowed the sum of fifty dollars for an old horse in Gillam township, that had been bought by a Mr. McColly sold to the party owning the horse at the time he fell through the bridge and got bis leg broke “If this C ur: made a single inquiry beyond the claimant’s witnesses, who know's of it?” It is also rumored that these same County Commissioners allowed a claim of Spring, Emerson & Co., of Lafayette, at their June or September session, 1886, for six knife erasers. “If this Court made a single inquiry about what officers they were for, or the propriety and necessitp of their purchase, who knows of it?” Again, it is rumored that this same Board of County Commissioners made an allowance of five or six hundred dollars for making the transfer and plat books of Jasper county for 1886; and sllß for adding 10 per cent, to assessment of 1887, which claims Hon. Simon P. Thompson, County Attorney in 1886, advised the Board not to pay, as they were not warranted by law. “If this Court made a single inquiry, other than of Mr. Thompson, who knows of it?” On this point sec. 5766, R S. 1881, says: The Board of County Commissioners shall, unless in case of indispensable public necessity to be found and entered of record as part of its orders, make no allowance not specifically required by law to any County Auditor, Clerk, Sheriff, Assessor or Treasurer, either directly or indirectly, or to any clerk, deputy, bailiff or emi Joye of such officer. Nor shall they except in cases above provided employ any person to perform any duty required by law, of any offloer, or for any duty to be paid b commission or per eentage. * * * * * If it be found necessary and so entered of record, to employ any person to render any service as contemplated in this section, a* publie necessity, the contract for such emplyment shall be spread of record in said court, and for such services rendered, the claimant sh 11 file his account in said court ten days beiore the beginning of the term and any taxpayer shall have the right to contest the claim. (Decided in 58 Ind. 260, and 63, 492.) Sec. 5907 R. S. 1881, makes the County Auditor’s salary SI2OO per year, and sec. 5908 provides for incidental fees. Sections 5927 and 5928 provides for Treasurer’s fees. Tbe Supreme Court of the State decided in case of Nowels, Auditor, vs Board of Commissioners of Jasper county, 86 Ind. 179, that a claim for distribution of former Treasurers fees could not be allowed by Board. (98 Ind. 88; 98 Ind. 108, and 105 Ind. 246, areio the point.) The Statute also provides that all blunks used by the Auditor, Clerk, Sheriff or other officer, where he receives a fee for same shall be paid by the officer: Recorder's office—Deeds, mortgages, releases, &c. Auditor’s office — Liquor Licenses, tax certificates, school deeds, school mortgages, &c. Clerk’s office —Summons, Justice bonds, executio .8, suopcenas, &c. Sheriff’s office-—Sheriff’s deeds, certificates oi sale, &*.

Does this court exorcise due dilligonet, when stationery b’lls are allowed, to protect the county from payment for such blanks? Page 196 of the acts of 1885, sec. 3, provides: That it is hereby made the duty of the Board of Commissioners of each county of this S,tate, at their first regular session after the taking effect of this act, to appoint in eaeh Commissioner’s district of the county, three reputable freeholders, any two of whom, without the concurrence of the third, ma? act as school fund appraisers whoss duty it shall be upon oath to make all the appraisements of lands in|their respective districts, required in this act oi in the act of which this i. .m ndatory. B«d .pprai»™

or any of them may bo removed ana new ones appointed by said Board at any regular or special session, aud iu case any of such appraisers is at any time disqualified by reason of kinship or interest, from acting the appraisement shall be made by the other appraisers, who in case of a disagreement shall electa third appraiser. Said *»I>1 raisers shall recede the same com ; eiitation for muking such appraisement and be paid in the same manner as such appraisers are now paid. If the court made a single inquiry or have appointed a single appraiser in compliance with ibis statute, which went into effect Jure 3d, 1885, who knows of it? It is thought by <>ome that all loans made in nonconformity with this act, since the taking effect thereof, are illegal because appraisers were not appointed as required. “If the Board has made a single inquiry concerning this matter, who knows of it?” Then it is time that lack of due dilligenoe, and leaks resulting therefrom, should cease. Another Tax-Paye”. RensseLor, ind. Dec. 28, ’B7. A few weeks since “A Taxpayer” dissented, through the columns of th© Republican, at the allowances made by the Circuit Court. On this page “Another Taxpayer” expresses himself as equally disgusted with what he understands to b the procedure of the Commissioners’ JJourt. Remedy: Fill the places in those courts with Democratic incumbents.