Jasper County Democrat, Volume 2, Number 9, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 June 1899 — Page 4 Advertisements Column 1 [ADVERTISEMENT]

F ? F MI Beware of the men who me always trying to defend the scoundrels who are fattening on public plunder. A dose inspection will generally reveal the fact that they are sharing In the booty.—Hebron New?. bM a r The mattei of an investigation of the official management of Jasper county is one which concerns every individual taxpayer, be he ever so humble. Now that the publication of legal notices is a little dull, perhaps the editor of the Apologist will devote a little space in his valuable paper in explaining that stationery steal of last year. Under the new laws no more bills for ‘‘public printing” will go. The nature of the service rendered must be set out in plainer form. This may be a hard blow to the Apologist, however. The White county commissioners last Wednesday rejected all bids for the Princeton township macadam roads, and will re-adver-tise and let the contract June 19. The bids submitted run between 159,322 and $59,989. Auditor of State Hart is having the meandered lands along the Kankakee surveyed and platted that they may be sold according to a law passed by the last legislature. There are between 4,000 and 5,000 acres of this reclaimed land. If an honest investigation of the official management of Jasper county does not prove the truth of every statement made by The Democrat in regard to county affairs, then will we acknowledge ourself a liar. Until such time we stand by every statement made, and will say that “the half has not been told.” The Democrat would like to know how many times a year the Barnacle editor collects subscription for the copy of the Barnacle occasionally placed on file in the county recorder’s office. In June, *9B, we find an allowance made by the county commissioners of $1.25 for subscription to this sheet. We have not taken the trouble to look up all the allowances intervening, but in March, only nine months later, the Barnacle bobs up serenely with another $1.25 on subscription. James Thomas, ex-county recorder of Hancock county, paid to the county treasurer $1,597.05 for fees collected and never reported by his son, Elmer E. Thomas, deputy recorder. Several weeks ago the county commissioners employed Robert Mason and James F. Reed, two prominent attorneys of Greeenfield, to make an investigation of the affairs of the several county offices, to cover the entire period of the new fee and salary law, for the benefit of the taxpayers. The records of the recorder’s office were completed this week, which showed the above shortage as settled by Recorder Thomas. At the September (1898) session of the board of county commissioners we find the following allowances were made in reference to the Apologist: G. E. Marshall, publishing for Assessor. .8 5 25 G. E. Marshall, publishing notice taxpaying time..;...' 945 6. E. Marshall, publishing for Co. Supt. 8 25 G. E. Marshall, publishing Com. allowances ............... 24 65 G. E. Marshall, publishing for Co. Supt. 26 00 G. E. Marshall, public printing... 85 13 Will the editor of the Apologist please state to the taxpayers of the county the nature of the “publishing for county superintendent” and “public printing” for which he received the above sums? The terms used in the publication of allowances are somewhat vague to the average taxpayer.