Jasper County Democrat, Volume 4, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 June 1901 — ABOUT THE COURT HOUSE. [ARTICLE]

ABOUT THE COURT HOUSE.

Monday was quite a busy day. The county council, board of commissioners and board of review were in session. A report of the proceedings will be found elsewhere in this column. — o — New suits filed: W. B. Austin vs. Lacuriis Randle, foreclosure. J. H. Chapman, att'y. —o — The supreme court on Wednesday overruled the petition for a rehearing in the ditch case of Makeever vs. Martindale, from this county. o The Board of Review has had no complaint made as yet over assessments, and has made no changes in assessment at this writing except ta correct a few errors in the assessors’ sheets. —o — The ice has again been broken this month and marriage license number two for the month of June was issued Saturday. The contracting parties were Reuben K. Hoy and Miss Lena 0. Foster, estimable young people of Hanging Grove tp. —o The improvement of the three streets about the public square with brick pavement upon crushed stone foundation, contract for which was let last week, will cost the county a little over $5,600. This is a trifle “blooded” for a county whose per capita debt is already over $9.00 per head. —o — The commissioners met in special session last Monday on call of the auditor to make estimates for action of the county council and to act upon transcript and order in the Martindale ditch. It was ordered by the board that the viewers meet at the auditor’s office, July 8, and make final report. —o —

We notice a feature of the call made by the Starke county auditor for the meeting of the Board of Review that might be copied with profit by other counties. The call designates the day on which the assessments each town or township will be taken up, and those having complaint to make can govern themseßes accordingly. This method, it seems, would greatly facilitate the work of the board, as each town or township can be taken up in its order and gotten out of the way, while under the system usually pursued—in Jasper at least —there is no regular order of taking np this work, which necessitates much needless labor and unnecessary handling of books. —o— Appeal is being taken to the higher courts in the case of the Jasper County Telephone Co., vs. Jasper county, where Judge Palmer of the White circuit court held that the county had no power to increase the assessment of a corporation. If this telephone company with a paid in capital stock of $28,000, probably SIO,OOO, of which was invested in Rensselaer, must escape with a $75 assess--1 ment in this city with a total tax Jof only $2.28 per year, *he taxing I officers wish to know it. Its as- | sessment was increased about $6,000 per year for three years back, but the company successfully enjoined the collection of taxes on said assessment in the lower courts. —o — The county council made the following appropriations at its special session Monday: Unpaid 1900 Claim*. Supplie* for poor farm $ 6 91 Telephone rent 26 U 5 Expense jail 11 uo Road viewing 4 50 Cuhhbnt Yeah Appbopbiatons. Tru»tee*' service* taking enumeration of voter* for legislative re-ap-pointment ,$260 00 Additional app. for Co. Institute provided by new law Increasing amt to SIOO 50 00 Additional app. for Co. recorder, occasioned by legislature increasing salary S6OO per year 4SO 00 No appropriation -was asked for to pay the Burford judgement, for some reason; probably because the matter was overlooked. . An appropriation of $25 was asked for to pay St. Joseph’s college people tor gravel used in constructing a gravel walk from the corporation line of Rensselaer to the College, they having had a partial verbal agreement with the

commissioners that they would pay for the gravel used if the former would do the work. The walk was constructed last fall, and the council held that as the work had been done, and done vol tintarilly so far as there was any recrod to show, they had no power to grant the appropriation now, and. declined to make the same. An appropriation of $5,000 was asked for to pay the tax-ferrets,, the money to be used as collections of taxes unearthed by their investigation was paid in, under the contract of 50 per cent, of all such collections. Attorney H. R. Kurrie opposed the making of any appropriation for the purpose of paying the ferrets, while O. E. Mills and J. E. Wilson made a plea for the appropriation. The matter was argued to some length by thecouncil, Councilman Denhan ands Weurthner favoring the appropriation and Councilmen Eldredge, Babcock and Biggs opposing tying up so much money at this time, the latter arguing that the regular meeting would be held in September and as it was represented that only about MOO in such taxes had been paid in thus far, only S2OO of which belonged to the ferrets, there was no necessity of making so targ^anappropriation now. Denham made a motion to appropriate the $5,000, which was seconded by Weurthner. A vote was taken and thomotion was lost, Denhan and Weurthner voting aye and Babecock, Biggs and Eldredge voting; nay. Eldredge then made a motion to appropriate $1,000; seconded by Biggs. Vote taken and Babcock, Denham and Weurthner voted nay; Biggs and Eldredge voting aye. The motion was lost and no appropriation at all was made.

In our opinion the council should have made the SI,OOO appropriation, at least. The higher courts have held similar contracts with tax-ferrets to be legal and binding, and they will have to be paid. The experts have already been to great expense in conducting this investigation, and it would have no doubt been quite an accomodation to them had the council made a reasonable appropriation so they might get their share of the money as it is paid in. We do not think that there is a disposition on the part of the council to refuse appropriations for this purpose altogether, and that when next called together an appropriation sufficient at least to cover all claims then due the experts will be made. Regarding this tax-ferret investigation, Attorney Kurrie, whom it is supposed represented some of the bigger fish in the alleged taxdodger crowd, (he did not state, we are informed, who he appeared for) stated that the legality of this investigation or the contract with the ferrets would be further litigated; that the end was not yet. Therefore we may expect a further ruffling of the fur when the screws are turned on the more powerful animals in the alleged tax-dodger zoo.