Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1861-12-27
That $1e2, SO Steal,

ing for the comfy without any authofi-
ty," Writhes and twists like skinned eel
under our exposure of the means employ
ed by him for "raising the wind. " He
undertook to answer US in his last issue
and made the following points:
"The resolution recommending the
printing of the tax lists in a German pa
per was first introduced in the Board of
Supervisors by republican [ l., L. Fri
bert, Esq. and passed by republican
board in 1859. The same resolution pass
ed in 1860.
1.-The Jefferson Republican received
the same fee for printing the same list as
the 'Weltburger, and also the 'Watertown
Republican, Sec. 81, page 154, Rev.
Statutes of 1858, shows that under the
resolution of the board the publisher of
the 'Weltburger' was legally entitled to
the fee, while only one English paper was
entitled to the same. Therefore the mon
ey received by the Republican might very
properly be called steal.
"The passage of the bill, allowing the
pay for the printing of the tax list in the
'Weltburger' was decided by the majority
of the republicans in the board voting for
it, and .everal democrats voting against it. y
To all of which we have this to say
LIST. 1t is not true that L. T. Friebert,
ESQ, was a Republican in 1859. Nor
would it make any difference if he was
A steal is none the less steal, because it
is perpetrated under the administration of
Republican officials. We never inquired
nor cared whether the Board which made
the recommendation spoken of was Demo
cratic or Republican, though we happen to
know that the one which made this unjust
and illegal appropriation was Democratic.
Cd. The resolution alluded to was simp-
ly recommendatory to the Treasurer, 1t
only suggested that the tax list should be
printed in the German language. Nothing
was said about the Weltburger. Its name
was not mentioned in the resolution at all,
No authority, therefore, expressed or i'm
piled, was conferred upon that paper to
print the list the Board not ordering it
done and the Treasurer wisely concluding
that there was no necessity for publishing
it in that sheet, and having so Informed
the editor scden he made application for it.
Cd. The Weltburger's citation Of the
law in the premises is an unfortunate one
for its own side. The editor must have
known as much, for he carefully withheld
its publication. We supply the omission
and print below the section he cites, to-
gether with an additional one which con-
firms the view We have taken. The law
says:
SEC. 81 In all cases where the Board
of Supervisors of any county in this State
shall deem it necessary for the better in
formation Of the inhabitants thereof, they
may order public notices relating to tax
sales or other affairs of said county to be
published in one newspaper published in
any other than the English language Pro-
vided, that all such notices shall be pub
lished in newspaper published [printed
in the English language, as heretofore re-
quired by law.
SEC. 50, The rates for such publica-
ton shall be the same as those prescribed
by law for the publication in the English
language, and no extra charge shall be al
lowed for the translation of the same
So that the law contemplates in the
first place that independent of the publ
cation to be ordered by the Treasurer, the
Board shall "ORDER" (that is the world
the work done (Which ii will be remember
ed it did not Do in this ease y and in the
next place that the publication shall be
an the German language; else why provide
that "no charge shall be allowed for trans
lation?" If the Board had even met the
requirements of the law and ordered what
it only recommended should be done, the
Weltburger failed to give the notice le-
gal publication and should not have been
paid for it, because the same ,cds printed in
English. In two important particulars,
therefore, there was failure to comply
with the statute, which in the eye of the
law rendered the publication in the Welt
burger just no publication at ALL This
view was also taken by the committee
which reported the bill, for did they not
say in their report that they found ''no
authority for paying it. but in view of the
circumstances surrounding the case they
recommend its allowance p
4th. The Weltburgers assertion that
several Democrats voted against the bill
is false. Mr.. Emerson, of Milford, was
the only Democrat voting in the negative.
But why pursue the subject further?-
Every unprejudiced mind must see that
a cool and deliberate imposition has been
practiced upon the tax payers of this coun.
ty. No one knows this better than Rothe,
for whatever else you may say Of him, he
is not fool He knows that the County
has been robbed Of $l62. so, partly through
his conniyance and instrumentality, for
he engineered the bill through the Bocrd
. - - -. - me- nra ~ thnso nils