Jasper County Democrat, Volume 4, Number 44, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 February 1902 — COMMISSIONERS ARRESTED. [ARTICLE]

COMMISSIONERS ARRESTED.

Charged With Having Made An Illegal Allowance to the Apologist On complaint of F. E. Babcock, Commissioners Halleck, Dowell and Way mire were arrested Monday evening on the charge of having made an illegal allowance from the county treasury to the editor of the Rensselaer Republican. The particular allowance on which the affidavit was made was that of publishing the second notice of railroad election in Barkley tp., in 1900, after having previously allowed pay for publishing the same identical notice in the Journal. Under the old law, whenever Abe and his cohorts found time hanging heavily on their hands and could call a special sessionT and bleed the county for $10.50 per day, no penalty was provided for allowing pay for legal publications in almost as many newspapers as was seen fit. but under the County Reform Act —which, by the way, has cut down the expenses in Jasper county more-than one-third—the commissioners are liable to a fine of not less than SSO or more than SSOO for “allowing or paying’’ for publication of any such notice in more than one paper unless it is specifically required to be published in more than one paper. This feature of the law has been violated time and again by the gentlemen who, while not looking after telephone franchises or the cattle business, are supposed to look after the interests of the taxpayers of Jasper county. In this particular instance Leslie Clark, editor of the Journal, filed a claim on Nov. 10, 1900, for sl6 for making this publication, and on Nov. 15, the Apologist man filed a claim for the same publication, also for sl6 and warrant No. 1498 drawn for same. Both claims were allowed at the Dec. 1900, session of the commissioners—not at different sessions, as stated by the Journal—the former on the 2nd day of the term and the latter on the 3d day. Both claims were before the commissioners all the time during the session and it would be very strange indeed if they did not know they were allowing two claims for the same service. (It will also be remembered in connection with the Barkley railroad election, that the Barnacle got its oar into the county treasury for sl2 for “services” alleged to ha\ e been rendered by its editor’s daughter, Mrs. Bostwick, although one of the commissioners when afterward asked what those services were, said that “he did not know.”)

Some time after these allowances were made, The Democrat editor went to the auditor’s office and asked for certified copies of both claims. Deputy Murray refused to make the copies “until thfe court mandated him,”although the legal fees were tendered him and the law requires the auditor to make certified copies of any jiapers in his possession on demand and tender of fee. Deputy Clark also refused. We later appealed direct to Auditor Babcock, who stated that the copies would be made if the law required him to do so. He consulted his attorneys and had the copies made. Our reasons for desiring certified copies was that we had learned from experience that “errors” were sometimes “corrected” in Jasper county by changing the records or in cutting out pages thereof, and while our calling for the same gave notice to the parties implicated that we were onto their steal, we wanted evidence at hand that could not be changed to suit the plea that might be set up in court, should the matter reach there. In the other instances we asked for nor procured no certified copies, as we prefered to let them believe that we were ignorant of their lawless acta. We had hoped to see a nonpartisan “taxpayer’s league” organized here to prosecute all acts of this character, but as such had not been done, determined to file the required affidavit ourself, as the statute of limitations on some of these allowances had nearly expired. Now, in conclusion, we

wish to impress upon the mind of every taxpayer in the county that the above is not the only instance where an illegal allowance for publication to Marshall has been made—far from it—and while we do not care to state all of them at this time we mention one as a fair sample: About two years ago the Journal published the notice to taxpayers, filing a claim for $54.25, was allowed and pttjd. The Republican editor, a filed a claim for $57.25 for the same identical publication and "Was allowed and paid that amount. The notice was not required in but one paper—a clear steal of $57.25. We know there are a number of people who will tell you all this is false—people who will not believe the evidence of their own eyes because they don't want to believe it—yet we will willingly go to the records with any committee of taxpayers and convince them—if ocular proof will do every statement, now or at any other time made by The Democrat regarding the mismanagement of county, affairs is true. The commissioners gave bond in the sum of SIOO each and the cases will come up at the Feburary term of court.