Jasper County Democrat, Volume 5, Number 42, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 January 1903 — MORE ABOUT THE POOR FARM. [ARTICLE]

MORE ABOUT THE POOR FARM.

Supt. Clark of the poor farm has nothing to lose and a great deal to gain by telling what he knows “that will shake up Jasper county,” whigh he stated to The Democrat he could tell if he chose. In fact he has a greatfdeal to gain in the good opinion of the mass of taxpayers of the county by “telling it all.” He owes it to himself, his family and to the people to tell what he knows regarding any wrong-doing by others in this matter. The first step in the fight for a change in the Nicholson law has been taken in the introduction of a bill by Representative Conway of Dearbon that will eliminate the “blanket remonstrance” feature of the present law. The bill makes a specific provision that every remonstrator against a saloon license must sign his own name to the remonstrance. It further separates a township from an incorporated town within its borders, making it impossible to beat a saloon license in such corporation unless the signatures to the remonstrance are all of residents in the town. It will be remembered that four years ago The Democrat made some reference to the cost of maintaining the poor farm in this county. This was replied to by figures emanating from the county auditor’s office which would make it appear that The Democrat man had made false statements in his criticism. We then wrote to the State board of statistics, asking for the figures filed there bearing the sworn statement of the auditor. A reply to this letter, confirming our previous statements was received and was posted up in The Democrat’s office window for several weeks, and it was noticeable that the defenders of the poor farm management didn’t care to discuss the matter any further. Little has been done in the state legislature as yet except the introduction of bills, of which at this writing 208 have been introduced in the house and 159 in the senate Mr. Fairbanks was reelected United States senator Tuesday, the complimentary vote of the democrats being given to Hon. B. F. Shively of South Bend. No measures of special importance to the people of this section have yet been passed. Quite a number of “graft” bills for public officers are in evidence and will probably bo passed. One of these increases the salary of circuit judges, and makes a uniform salary of $3,500 where there is more than one county in the district. Should this become a law it would increase Judge Hanley's salary SI,OOO per year. No, The Democrat editor makes no claims to being a “bad man,” always spoiling for a “fight,” and he has no “police court record” here or elsewhere. Doge settle their imaginative differences by snarling, biting and chewing each other in the streets, and after it is over nothing is settled except that “there has been a dog fight.” Gentlemen in this enlightened age don’t get down to a level with the mongrels of the canine species. The Democrat will continue as heretofore * to give news pertaining to the management of public affairs without fear or favor, and if any statements are made that cannot be substantiated, let the offended parties prosecute its editor in the courts, rather than hire some cheap thug to lie in wait at some alley and assault him as be passes by.

Without in any way excusing or condoning any wrong-doing of the present superintendent, all the blow and bluster that can be made will not change the figures one iota regarding the great cost of the management and expense of the Jasper county poor farm and poor asylum under the superintendency of Mr. Hardy or the excellent showing made by Mr. Clark. As long ago as 1894 or 1895, when the writer was publishing a paper at Remington, the State Board of Charities, in its annual report (a copy of which was received at our office) commented at some length on the outrageous expense of conducting our poor farm and asylum, and stated that it could not understand why, with so large and productive a farm as this should be, in the fertile region about Rensselaer, and with so few inmates as the reports showed there were in the poor asylum, it should be so extraordinary expensive. This criticism was published by us in the Remington Press, as the files of that paper will show, and was the first our attention was called to the matter, Thereafter we watched up the reports made of the poor farm (in our reference to the expense of the poor farm we always mean to include the poor asylum which is an institution thereof) and found that the county had two well developed sink-holes .-Burk’s bridge and the poor farm. That our readers may have an intelligent understanding of this matter we quote below from the 12th, 13th and 11th reports of the State Statistician, (all the reports we have at hand) giving the number of inmates and the total

expenditures for all purposes and from all sources of our poor farm for past years. These figures are complied from the official reports sent in by the county auditor, anti therefore ajre supposed to be strictly correct: 1895. ’96. ’97. ’9B. ’99. ‘OO Number inmates.. .10. 19. 10. 13. 13. 15. Expenditures, 1895 ~.53,267.00 (No receipts shown) E x pend i t u res, 1896 ..$4,271.00 (No receipts show n) Expenditures, 1897 .$3,367.92 Receipts, 1897 ’.. 911.75 Deficit, 1897 $2,456.20 Expenditures, 1898 $3,508.18 Receipts, 1898 2,605.28 Deficit, 1898 892.90 Expenditures, 1899 $5,583.90 Receipts, 1899 2,978.00 Deficit for 1899 2,407.90 Total deficit for 1897. 1898, 1899 $5,757.00 The reports from which these figures are taken do not give the receipts and expenditures for the last nine months of Mr. Hardy’s reign, (the fiscal year from which the State Statistician’s reports are taken ending on May 31 of each year) but as the farm was pretty well stripped of all personal property, as shown by the report made when he loft the farm, March 1, 1900, as re-pub-lished herewith, it should have been somewhat better. The last report of Clark (made Nov. 30, 1902) is also re-published, which shows that there is about $2,000 worth more stock alone on the farm now than when h w 'it therein March, luuo. Twem,tive head of the hogs mentioned are fat hogs, worth appoximately $500: Hardy, Meh. 1, 1900. Clark, Nov. 30.1902. 4 Mule*, 7 Head of Homes,’ 8 Head of Cattle, 26 Head of Cuttle, 13 Head of Hogs, 73 Head of Hog*, 100 Chickens, 200 Chickens, 2000 Bushels of Corn, 1800 Bushel* of Corn. 1100 Bushel* of Oats. 2500 Bushels of Oat*. 270 Bu«. Hungarian. Below also appears Clark’s regular quarterly reports, sh ewing total receipts and expenditures for the two years and nine months he has been, there. This is also rc-published by request, and the reader should remember that ALL expenditures, including superintendent’s salary, etc., are included, as does also, so the reports state, the figures taken from the State Statistician’s re--1 port. It must be remembered al-

so, that since Clark’s last report he has paid in SI,OOO which it was alleged he had failed to report previously. This would reduce the total deficit for the 2 years and 9 months of his reign to $385.40, against $5,757.00 for three full years of his predecessor; and numerous improvements have been made, SSOO to S7OO paid out for tiling, new machinery bought, the farm in better condition than ever before and there is at least $2,000 worth more personal property there now than three years ago. Date of Report. Receipts. Expenses. May 31, 1900.. ..$ 53 10 $703 99 Aug. 30, “ 1,171 22 397 34 Nov. 30, “ 219 15 648 32 Feb. 28, 1901 48 45 419 00 May 31, “ 601 75 696 50 Aug. 31, V 553 82 948 90 Nov. 30, “ 879 82 638 33 Feb. 28, 1902 349 25 671 23 May 31, “ 500 00 209 28 Aug. 31, “ 250 00 475 00 Nov. 30. “ 300 00 07 Totals $4,956 56 $8,311 96 4,956 56 Excess exp. for the 2 yrs. 9 in 05... 11,IM 10 Now, bear in mind, The Democrat did not MAKE these figures; they are merely copied from official records made by republican officials, and therefore can not be

classed as “another of The Democrat’s lies.” No amount of bullying, bow-beating or lying can in any way change the story these figures tell. The official reports from which they are taken will be cheerfully shown to any “doubting Thomases” if they will take the trouble to call at this office. The Republican says that Representative Wilson’s bill to amend the drainage laws does not reduce allowances to viewers, but increases the allowances; also that the bill was introduced at request of the Iroquois ditch petitioners, and Gifford has nothing whatever to do with it. The Democrat had no desire to misrepresent Mr. Wilson in any way, and its information regarding Gifford’s supposed connection therewith was from general talk about the matter. The Indianapolis papers stated that the bill reduced allowances to viewers, as will be seen from the following clipping from which our information was gleaned, and if it increases their pay, we were certainly blameless in the matter. Following is the mention of the introduction of the bill by the Indianapolis papers: “H. B. 17. Wilson—Amending the drainage law*, reducing the allowance* to viewers, etc." Stops th* Ceagb and Work* *ff the C«ld. Laxative Biomo Quinine Tablet* cure • cold in one day. No cure, *o pay, Price, 85 cent*.