The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1850-06-01


the sale Of the poor house on the terms proposed
BY the committee, and il the question was put IN
it, present shape. he hardly knew how he should
vote. Hs was in favor Of dividing the question
Mr.. Baldwin alec though every tub shonldstsnd
On its own bottom
The motion Of Mr. Barber to divide the question
wsa agreed to.
The question then being stated to be on each (
town taking charge Of its own paupers,
Mr. Lewis said that 1t hal nj trs been his opln,
ion that the proposed system was not authorized
by the township law. but a more thorough exam |
nation had satihed him tint It Was entirely legal
He should therefore vote in favor Of the measure.
Mr. Barber was in favor Of each town having
charge OF its own paupers, if such measure were
legal, but was decidedly of the opinion that there
was no such power given the towns. He read
various sectiuns of the township law showing
that tue board OF supervisors had precisely the
SAME powers and duties in reference to the poor
that the old board o. county commissioners had.
Also section showing, tlait the bills Of the
srers poor are to be audited and settled by he
county
Mr., Let's read a section OF III" township law
in which 1t Is made the duty At the to'rH auditors
10 audit the accounts Of the over>ecr OF the poor
lie aso read another section recognizing distinct
/, the oycr>ecr - 4 town officer Hcsaii the pro-
VISIONS uI kHc law appeared IT. C'iliI't WI h' oNu
jcct lie was for adopting the system h~liked
best, which was ,lnt each lnvn take charge OF ~
own paupclS.
Mr Wallace said nothing could be clearer than,
rs the law required the county TO audit and pay
their oysrseers OF poor that the law meant the
poor 10 be county charge.
! Mr. Jack >on thought there was ~ much author
ity 10 adop, the proposed system As there was for
this meeting.
Mr. Wallace agreed with lin lie had mot he
lvcl from the beginning that We were legally or
cumpetenuy here. The law Wa, very vague and
indefinite bu where It WAS a. plain as It j. IN
this matter there could bo no excuse for disre
gar!iug its provisions.
Mr. Baldwin could not speak u, confidently As
owhnt was the law rs gentlemen thnt had spoken
on either side. Sec. Is Of art 10, certainly seem
ed plainly enough to vest the whole management
of the poor in the county board but other parts of
the law seemed tn'approycd the town system He
was not satisfied which was Law. The question was
a difficult one. lie thought the board should
4 not act rashly. BY the adoption of the proposed
/ system the town OF Ottawa would be agyrlevcd,
and she might right her-clfby law. There would
if the proposed system was adopted, nevertheless
yet be some county poor.
Mr.. Stanford referred TO Sec . Of art Of the
town law, and said tina, section Us well a. others
evidently regarded tine oycrsopr as u town officer
and gave lin town duties lie thought the law
contemplated two systems. When the oycrseer
acts rs town officer It seems 10y the law his pay
is to he 81 day; when he act, rs n county Off
Ger, it j. fixed at s so per DAY II there could
be no such thing as the town having charge OF
=, the poor, M s. desired to know what service the
oyerseer could render to the towns to entitle lin
to 81 per dayl
Mr. Wagner could sec no good reason for doubt
or hesitanCy in this matter, He was satisfied as
TO the law, and was prepared to act Immediately
During the existence Of the county commissioners
That board could undoubtedly have given the
charge of the poor to the precincts, and the law
clearly meant TO give the board Of supervisors the
same power in reference to the towns. And now
If it was done. who would have right to com,
plant 1t was suggested that Ottawa would have
such n right. let Us examine into this, said Sir
W. Ottawa was an Incorporated town-bad
some % places licensed To sell liquor, which liccn
ses went into town treasury. The towno Troy
hld one Of these pauper manufacturing establish
ments, and that paid license To the county. II
Ottawa then received heavy pay lrr making pau.
e-s, II was no more than right that she should
support heavy proportion Of the paupers. 1t
VAS also suggested that Ottawa was on great
thoroughfare; but it was equally true that she
greed that the law contemplated two systems, but
not co-exstent. He could not seeh how there could
be county md town paupers at the same time
: lhc paupers must be in some town OF other.
!. Nj. Baldwin agreed with Mr W. that if Ottawa
, made paupers and he believed she did make
, them by the wholesale, she should support them
hut we cant make her do it without authority Of
, law.
| Mr. Jones read art | / Of the town law, calling
attention particularly to sections and I, showing
that the oversesr Of the poor was expressly made
a town officer
Mr. Baldwin moved 10 lay the portion Of the
+ report Of the committee or the poor house now
under consideration on the table.
On this motion the yeas and nays were dcman,
dcd and resulted as follows:
, Ieds--Mitchel Wait. Clayton, Barber, Bald
win Trumbo, Lewis, Wallace, Jones, Eels, Butter
field, Iligby.-l2
5 Nays Beardsley ,Mackey Galloway, Let's. Nc
}. Burney, Bryant. Jackson, Hoffman, Wagner, Stan
e ford, lloxsey, Hartson-lo
So the motion to lay ON the table was lost
The question recurring on adopting the recon-
incubation Of the report so far as related To each
town taking charge ofiis own poor
Mr.. Wallace demanded the yeas and nays
which were taken rs follows
: Yeas Beardsley, Mackey, Mitchell, Wait, Clay
0 ton, Let's McBurney, Baldwin, Bryant, Lewis
= jackson, Jones Hoffman. Eels, Wagner, Stanford
! IIoxsey. Hartson--ls.
4 Nays- Galloway, Barber. Trumbo Wallace
c ButtsIiicld, Higby.--6
So the recommendation Of the repor, wa q
greed To.
Mr. Wagner moved the adoption Of the sccon,
:, recommendation Of the report, proposing to sci
U the poor house and farm.
Mr.. jackson said that although he was in favo
of sale Of the poor house he could not vote f.
i the plan recommended in the report. II mad
no provision for, or disposition of the paupers
/. present m the poor house Then the mode Q
a sale was Objectionable The time given for pay
% inent seemed to him too long and he though
! the first payment should be largcr-large cnoug
Is to guaranty the county against the property con
Il ing back by reason Of failure to'mnke the otho
" payments. He thought the proposition to Sc
= should be settled first, aud then We might arrang
a the details and dispose of the paupcrs; and at h
suggestion, Mr.. Wagner so modified his motion d
1t to present the naked question of sale.
" Mr.. Wallace could not see the policy of sollin
- this property now. Real estate was a, prescr
70 low, but was rising in value, The farm would NJ
m now bring what it had cost, which he thought
+ ought to Ito. But if determined now TO b. sol,
pI ~ h.l tho In ,,,y tku t,,In L..