Jasper County Democrat, Volume 5, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 November 1902 — S. P. THOMPSON’S REPLY. [ARTICLE]

S. P. THOMPSON’S REPLY.

My reply to Wednesday’s persohal attack brought Workman by telegraph, Phillips by telephone and Halleck by instinct. The two commissioners over their own name make reply. They say the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the Iroquois. There was no appeal to the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court did no such thing. Wits the injunction against the White County Board dissolved? It had been long before November 22, 1897, by a mandate issued by Judge McConnell, and Halleck and Waymire knew it.* The Board of Jasper County, speaking for the ordered improvement, alone had the right to compel the White County Board to select a viewer. It is the law that the board should act mutually for the county and the improvement. (131 Ind. 217.) It was the fault of the Board after May 25, 1897, that bonds have not been sold to make said improvements. If payment is exacted from the petitioners it will be: taken without compensation. The county cannot afford an unjust lawsuit at the expense of all the taxpayers against a portion of them who are without fault. There is no precedent in the civilized world for the two lawsuits hatched on November 22, 1897, and for which Hanley & Hunt were promised $700.00. All taxable costs before the board are collected solely by fee bill, and no attorney is needed. (Secs. 599, 4297 and 5822 R. S. 1881.) All sums refundable are collected either by levy or a sale of bonds, and no attorneys are needed. The direction to Hanley & Hunt for a consideration of $700.00, to compel by technicalities made possible by omissions in the order, to be repeated in the new Iroquois, is a mere trick. Those who want the swamps drained must not be treated as criminals. They say the viewer on the Waukarusa was to be appointed by the White' County board. This is true, but Jasper County’s interest required them to demand said action instead of joining said White County Board in the dismissal of the Waukarusa which owed Jasper County $3,053.! 7. So the excuse for depriving the county of $6,699.87 does not have the merit even of ityThe claim of Workman was submitted to me for investigation and report when 1 should receive notice to meet him. Of this fact I informed Mr. Phillips on Thursday morning. The sum demanded they both knew I disputed. Halleck issued the order of court that Workman says he “had difficulty at that time in getting.” Thus Halleck assumed to be the whole board. Workman states that he had ceased work until after the election. It was deemed necessary to break faith with me, so as to popularize Mr. Halleck. Phillips was willing to do Mr. Halleck’s bidding and the matter went on the tax duplicate at the assessment made by the Tax Ferret and without any hearing. No other case at the same stage was so treated. Mr. Halleck’s rule is to increase his popularity by commencing private law suits at the public expense. So one was ordered to be commenced, in direct violation of good faith, and without any demand. In order to be spectacular in stampeding the voters, a photograph is on exhibition and I want everybody to see that photograph. “The longest bridge in the state made across a swamp, preserved by order of Mr. Halleck, November 15th, 1897,” would look well as a second picture in the gallery, and there should be marked under said picture the cost of all, except 50 ft. of said bridge plus all made to spite somebody. The Keener gravel road would look well in that picture, wherein the taxpayers were deprived of some $20,000.00 to boom Mr. llalleek’s friend, McGinnis, and spite my nephew. A photograph of the old Waukarusa cost enough, to-wit: $3,053.17, to be a tirstclass picture. The hundreds of dollars paid out to spite my nephew touching the pavement of the public square ought to be borne in the mind's eye. The many law suits by which the county has lost, not only the law suits, but much money besides, would look well also. It seems that Mr. Halleck being a lawyer loves to see the county pay the expenses when he can get the glory and popularity. I believe that the assessors and board of review should fix the values of property and not the Tax Ferrets. The Tax Ferret’s Contract. I. In 1897 the county received about one-seventh of the taxes levied for this city. 11. The Tax Ferrets get one-half of all they discover. They are paid directly out of the county treasury. Suppose under said contract at the end of a law suit there should be collected from me say, $350.00, which 1 claim I do not owe. The county would pay directly the cost of a lawsuit, pay the ferret for the right of discovery $175 and get in return SSO! Every taxpayer outside of this city should recollect that their money is taken and the county levy increased to feed grudge of Mr. Halleck and to pay the tax ferret, who is a foreigner, at the rate of $5.50 for every $1 received. October 31, 1902. SIMON P. THOMPSON. * The editor of The Democrat has personally seen the certified copy of the order of Judge McConnell dissolving the injunction in the Wakarusa ditch matter in'the White circuit court, at the January term, 1895, and we therefore know that Mr. Thompson’s statement is correct, aud that the Halleck & Waymire article in the Republican to the contrary regarding this matter is false. This copy was made and certified to by W. H. Coover, Clerk of the Jasper circuit court, on July The county records also show such to be the

fact.

F. E. BABOOCK.