The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1867-08-24
KEEPING THE POOR.
Brooke County i'm "a Ouandary on the
PRuper Question.


Fron the Wells5tr9 Herald Of Yesterday.
The question OF the poor farm and
house was up before the Overseers OF
the Poor and the Board of Supervisors
on Tuesday, and discussed to some ex-
tent.
There appears to have been mlsun-
derstauding about the respective du-
ties and powers OF the two Boards, last
year, which resulted in some little COM
p,ication OF the affair, not serious, how
ever. II appears that the deed for the
property was made to the Board of Su-
pervisOrs of 1866, and that the Board of
Overseers made verbal bargain 10 sell
ii portion of the property comprising
the mill and appurtendnces and some
land, for 81. 500 10 John Mayhall. Mr..
NJ. applied on the 20th TO have the bar
latter b ard discovered that although
their predecessors made the verbal
agreement, the title was in the Board
of Supervisors, and the Supervisors, al
though they held the title, did not make
the bargain. The result was that
neither party felt free to act and an un-
derstunding was come at that the title
should be conveyed TO aud reside in the
Overseers.
Alter this came up the question of the
further Improvement of the Poor House
Farm, or ofits abandonment and sale.
Mr. n. Wells reported but one bid for
the construction of the House, for which
proposals were invited; 1t WAS from a
Steubenville man, and proposed
inexpedient to accept il. The opinions
of the two Boards and also of citizens
present, being asked on the farm ques-
tion, Messrs. Wells and Hervey agreed
substantially upon the policy of selling
off all the land except some 40 acres,
4. al. L..
proving the remainder Mr.. Hervey
further suggested that the mill might
be converted into a poor house by a
reasonable outlay. Mr.. Buchanan
favored the retaining of the farm as an
entirety, erecting, or in some way pro-
viding house and giving It a longer
trial, though he had no objection to a
good sale. Mr.. George, Supervisor,
decidedly favored selling out, as did
Mr.. Hudson. MIR. Palmer was not very
decided. Lewis Applegate (outsider)
was in favor of retaining the farm and
leVying The requisite tax, remarking
that 1--WE would not feel it." Mr.. James
Palmer conceded with him, remark
ing that he could stand his proper
ton. Mr.. Abraham Wilson also
rather inclined to their views. Mr..
James Archer spoke against the
propriety of such a large establish
ment, asserting that IL would be un-
profitable and that majority of Cross
Creek township was in favor of dispo-
sing of it at once, and he intimated
that some OF them would be willing to
sell at a discount in order to be rid of
II. Other remarks were made of
conversational character, the prevail
ing opinion of the meeting being that
our poor arrangements were OF rath-
er poor description, when on a sugRes-
ton by Mr.. j. g. Palmer, resolution
was adopted that the whole matter be
referred TO the sovereign people. To
this end, the clerk WAS instructed to see
that at the October election, tickets
were provided, upon which, should be
printed "Ior or against the sale Of the
poor farm" the voter TO strike out, so
that the ballot should express his pre-
ference. II Is understood that this vote
relates to the disposition of the present
farm and that the supervisors will be
guided by the vote and the popular in
dications in their future actions, as to
whether they will retain and improve
all the present land, sell portion and
improve the balance, or sell out the
whole and adopt some other mode of
keeping the poor.
SO much being said and done, the
subject of Poor Farm was remanded for
the present, to the sovereigns for their
verdict.