Jasper County Democrat, Volume 5, Number 52, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 April 1903 — ABOUT THAT BALLOT PRINTING [ARTICLE]

ABOUT THAT BALLOT PRINTING

A Few Facte Showing Up That Alleged Appropriation and What Became of It Bro. Marshall, still at his old occupation of apologizing for the reprehensible conduct of republican officials, has had considerable to say in bolstering up “Honest Abe” about a “specific appropriation by the county council for printing the election ballots last fall. As usual, he done most of this blowing without investigating the matter for himself, taking Abe’s statement for his authority. Now what are the facts? Following are the items of election expenses for 1902 as they appear on the original requisition by the commissioners and as acted upon by the county council at their regular meeting in September 1901. The first coulumn of figures shows the amounts for the various purposes specified, as estimated by the commissioners; the second column shows the actual amounts appropriated by the county council, which are the same as appear on County Council Record No. 1, in the Auditor’s office: NINTH ESTIMATE—EIection Expenses: 1. 20 Inspectors at (2 per day, 4 days 1200 $l6O 2. 40 Judges at $2 per day, 2 days.. 240 160 3. 40 Clerks at $2 per day, 2 days... 240 160 4. 40 Sheriffs at sl.soper day, 2days 180 120 5. Kent Booths 60 40 6. Meals for election b0ard5........ 150 150 7. Repair of booths and boxes, hauling, etc 40 20 8. Advertising in , insertions 40 40 9. Printing and Stationery 80 80 10. Posting of sample ballots, notices of election, etc 40 40 11. Expenses of Election Commis'rs 12. Expenses of furniture and election supplies 100 50 13. Ail other expenses 100 50 Total estimated exp. of elections.sl47o 1070 Now it will be plainly seen that there is no specific appropriation for ballots whatever, as the word ballots is not used anywhere in the list. But, Marshall says the SBO appropriated for “Printing and Stationery” was a specific appropriation for the ballots. Now ballots cannot by any stretch of the imagination be classed as stationery. Printing, could, perhaps, be held to mean the printing of the ballots. But, let os see what was done with that SBO.OO. At the October term of commissioners’ court we find the following entry on both the docket and commissioners’ record (and the same identical phrasiology was used by all the newspapers in Rensselaer in their report of the proceedings of the commisssoners in this particular action) :

Cause No. 567. Burt-Terry Stationery Co v bid for election supplies: “Oct. term, Ist day. The election su ppiies not having been iiicluded in the contract for stationery for 1902, the bid of the Burt Terry Co. is accepted at SBO, the same being within the appropriation made by the council. Abraham Halleck, P. B." Now bear in mind, the record reads, “which was within the appropriation made by the council.” What appropriation? ‘Why, the SBO for printing and stationery, as the “supplies” contracted for could be paid for out of no other appropriation, as the supplies were stationery—pens, pencils, tailey-sheets, return blanks, etc., used by the various election boards. Here was both “printing and stationery” and the contract was let “within the appropriaton made by the council.” There was no other appropriation of SBO, and no other appropriation that could have been used for this purpose, and, if this was not the particular appropriation, why was it, referred to in the records as being “within the appropriation made by the council?” Proceeding to the next act in this chapter we find the following entry of record on the commissioners’ docket for the November 1902, term: Cluim N. 611. Burt Terry Stn., Co. election nuppli .SB9. “Nov. term, 1902. 3d duy; allowed nt SB9. Abraham Ham.kck, P. B.” Here it appears, that wlu,. the contrr 5 was le‘ “within the appropi 'tion made by the council” —SBC the Burt-Terry Co., were paid S~.OO more than they agreed to do the work for, or SB9. Suppose now, for the sake of argument, that this particular SBO was intended to be appropriated for printing the ballots, it wsb the full amount asked for by “Honest Abo,” and lie knew that The Democrat would print the ballots and therefore by asking for ah amount less than the work was worthfthe would have something to fall back on if we protested against taking so little for the

job. But this SBO was contracted away in October, two weeks before we had the order to print the ballots, and was paid out with $9 additional before our bill was filed. Thus, if the contention is accepted that the SBO was especially appropriated for the ballots, Abe and his cohorts violated the law when they contracted it away and paid it to the Burt-Terry Co., and if they paid the Burt-Terry Co., out of balances in the other specific election appropriations, they also violated the law, as they are not allowed to use balances from any item of appropriation to pay for something else. But, as a matter of fact, the SBO was what was meant when the contract was let to the Burt-Terry Co.—there was no other available appropriation for the purpose—and when it was paid out in November it left nothing whatever to pay for the ballots, if the contention be accepted that this was what the SBO was appropriated for. We infer that even the Apologist man would not be so absurd as to say that in this event the printer could collect no pay for his work. Marshall also says: “If they (the commissioners) allow claims in excess of the appropriation, they are liable to be prosecuted and heavily punished.” . But in this case they might have done as they do in hundreds of other instances where there is no existing appropriation to cover the claims, continued them until appropriation was made to cover the same. As a matter of fact, however, county council made a specific appropriation of only $4tJ for posting notices of election etc., which is done by the sheriff, and the commissioners at their December term 1902, allowed Sheriff Hardy $141.45, and Philip Blue $9.20 for work under this appropriation, and including the SB9 paid the Burt-Terry people in November, allowed claims for election purposes at the December term agregating $1,184.97, When THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR ALL OF SAID PURPOSES WAS BUT $1,070! . Exclude the SBO allowed The Democrat forLaliott printing and the commissioners still exceeded the total appropriations for the election purposes at this one term by $34.97.

Should they not be prosecuted for this? And does it look to a man up a tree as if Abe was watching out for or had any regard for the county council law when he exceeded these appropriations? Now, Marshall says that there are points which ought to be settled, in his argument to have the case appealed to the supreme court! What points? The only matter that could possibly be decided is that of this alleged specific appropriation for county ballots. and as the republicans will have the majority on the board of election commissioners in the next two elections at least and the republican printer will get all he asks for the job, no matter if it be twice what The Democrat charged, why put the county to a further expense of S2OO to S3OO in taking this case to the higher courts? Of course, Bro. Marshall would, no doubt, get the printing of the county’s brief, and thus profit financially by an appeal, but do the taxpayers want to go further in following Marshall, Abe and the cow-puncher in venting their personal spite on The Democrat man? This judgement is drawing interest now and will do so until paid, and in addition to the regular attorneys’ fee, cost of transcript, brief and court costs of an appeal, must be added the interest the judgement is drawing all this time. We can print our owu reply breif and not bo to a very great expense in the nppeal, and we can easily also do without the money until the higher courts get around to affirm the judgement of ihe lower court, which we are confident would result. Of course we would pay this expense ourself, while Abe has the county treasury to draw on, but is it good policy to further follow in the lead of the übove trio? They have been knocked galley-west at county expense twice now and should be squelched thoroughly. The county council law has been violated by Abe time and again and he only falls back on it whenever it suits his purpose to do so. The county council at its meeting next week should appropriate money to satisfy tliis judgement, and not appropriate a dollar to assist Abe in further venting his spite on his political foes for exposing his rottenness.