Jasper County Democrat, Volume 3, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 October 1900 — Why Under Protest? [ARTICLE]

Why Under Protest?

On Commissioners Record No. 11; at page 233, we find the following entry: “No. 7103, Robert B.iPorter, Recorder Report of fees. “Comes now Robert B. Porter, recorder of Jasper county, and presents his report of fees for quarter ending May 31, 1899, amounting to 5735.25, WHICH SUM I HAVE PAID INTO THE COUNTY TREASURY UNDER PROTEST and to avoid probable litigation for failure to do so. “The Board now examines and approves said report." Now the supreme court has time and again decided the fee and salary law of 1891 and 1895 constitutional, and reiterated -in those decisions that all fees of whatsoever nature collected by county officers under that law are the property of the county, and not of the officers who collected them, that the officer is confined strictly to his salary and “shall receive no other compensation for his services whatever.” “Words could hardly be stronger or more explicit,” says Supreme Judge Timothy E. Howard, in delivering the opinion upholding the law, inthe!47tb Indiana at page 184. The salary fixed by this law for the recorder of Jasper county is $l,lOO. This salary has been paid right along each quarter, as shown by the allowances made by the commissioners. Why, then, should that officer pay THE COUNTY’S OWN MONEY into the county treasury under protest? Why did the commissioners accept a report made under protest? Does the officer who paid the county’s money into the county treasury according to law expect, if reelected to office again this fall, to continue paying in the fees collected by him under protest, and then begin suit against the county to collect it back hoping that the law may finally be overthrown. These are pertinent questions for the taxpayers of Jasper county to decide before casting their ballots thia fall.

Some one more indiscreet than he should have been is alleged to have called McKinley “a traitor” on the street last Saturday. While this practice of charging political opponents with the crime of treason is not commendable, it does not lie in the mouth of Geo. E. Marshall to burst forth in invective against it. He has quoted with approval anything said by a numerous class of republican thugs, and thieves who have charged every crime in the calender against Mr. Bryan. He has been charged with inciting rebellion against the United States, with having caused the death of every soldier killed in the Philippines, with having given aid and comfort to the enemies of his county. No crime against man could be greater. Yet these charges have been made and reiterated by republicans time and again. How about McKinley, anyhow? When Capt. Oberlin M. Carter stole $2,500,000 from the U. 8., was court martialed, unanimously condemned and sentenced to five years hard labor, McKinley holds up the enforcement of the sentence for two years, because Carter had rich and influential friends; when Neely, Rathbone, Heath & Co., rob the Cuban postoffice of some $200,000 and are not even prosecuted—indeed Heath is in charge of this same scandal-bureau of 1 he god and morality party; when he appoints John W. Griggs attorney general of the U. 8., a man identified with the trusts, and who has persistently refused to prosecute any of them; who retired. Com. General Egan on full pay for five years for the little crime of TJurchasing thousands of pounds of rotten beef and delivering it to the army as rations; who permits M. A. Hanna, a notorious briber and boodler, who stands charged by his own party with having bought his seat in the U. 8. senate, manage his compaign for re-elec-tion— must, if he had knowledge’of any of these things, be either a fool or a knave, and a man wholly unfit to the office of president. A man protecting such a gang of thieves should be defeated at the polls Nov. 6.