The St. Cloud journal. [volume] (St. Cloud, Minn.) 1866-1876, 1875-02-11
THE TAX CONTROVERSY.
Fiddler" Again Draws His Bow.

- 'T---~
"Fiddler" Agsin Draws His Bow.
81 ST. CLOUD, Feb. 18th, 1876.
EDITOR JouRNAL.--Is see in your columns |
Of last week, = very meaningless TRADE Of
abuse from Mr.. Raymond, directed at our
county officials, Of whom he assumes Gid
dler" to be one, (the fiddler is aluays cursed
if his music doesn't suit). He ovsrshot his
mark in that, a in every thing else, for
"Fiddlsr" does not fiddle for the county.
nor has he ever drawn one cent from the
county for any purpose. However, Gid
der" is very willing to take up his bow
now for Mr.. RS exclusive benefit, warning
him beforehand that he plays no second
fiddle. Mr.. r., by his own words, appears
to be the only man in the county to COM
plain Of being "tirsd OUT dancing to the
'trogue's march," would like to inquire
how long before 1870 did he begin tripping
to said air! Long enough, I know, to be-
come perfectly au fat but how long?
In my previous. communication my first
statement was for the purpose of proving
the talsity of his, and it did it. Now, in
stead of "tackling" the figures like = man,
he svades the point, 'femarking that my
figures prove the reduction of their homo
taxes three-fourths in seven years, and
wonders at my cheek in advising economy.
Possibly he thinks there is no room (?) for
more reduction.
proved in my first statement that in
stead of taxes having increased 1900 per
cent, as he stated, they had decreased over
100 per cent, and I submit to you, Mr.. Edi-
tor, if man so mean ~ to make publicly
a statement 80 detrimental al was his TO
his town, the county and the State, ought
not to be lifted by the toe of the peoples
boot and propelled forcibly out of the coun-
try.
He wishe. now to compare notes." but
his and mine don't compare worth
picyune." He finds in his chat land has
doubled in value, with State and county
taxes in the wake, being nearly double
town and school taxes" Referring to
mine, I find that while land has nearly
doubled in value, State and county taxes
are reduced nearly one-half; and a for
his assertion that State and county taxes
are nearly double their town and school
taxes, I find ! difference of about one mill
and a-haf ON each dollar of valuation,
showing eonclusively that he h.. drawn
largely on his imagination for his notes.
Following all this he proceeds proudly to
introduce draw-poker idion'-ons he
doubtless found use for in his nine days
survey of seventeen miles of State road,
five miles per day being small average
for such work. He goes me one better.
So! Then I can do no less than "raise
him his pile" believing that he considers
himself one of that certain number who
believe they have divine right not only
to double, but treble, pay for services rem
dsred, but also right eternally to milk.ths
county cow" and steal the FODDER be-
twesn-timss. Again, this paragon of hon.
or and honesty is in error. I can assure
him that the records of the county are not
"musty," however much he may wish them
20.
No, a. he sees fit to make "that survey"
a principal point of discussion and animad-
version, and claims that both sides of the
shield have now been prssented-though all
the shield about the matter is his way of get
ting out of it. would like to see if those
':musty" records will not prove his side Of
said shield to be rather aecayed. We will
suppose, for the sake of argument, that in
this case his memory a. to dates, laws, ETC.,
il correct. The survey was made, pay
mont was demanded and refused-rsfused,
not for the reasons stated by him, but be-
cause the County Board, knowing by actual
experience the amount of such labor that
could be done in given time, considered
the claim ~ svsrcharged, not in the per
diem, but in the number Of days. In the
original bill eight claims were made: three
Of $45 each, one Of s44, and four of $18
each, aggregating $241. On these claims
the County Board was willing to allow,
and did allow, as follows: to each claim
of SIS, $24 to the claim of $44, $2s; and
to each claim of $1s, $40; total allow
ancs on the bill of $40. Of these eight
persons having claims, seven, OK all but this
pattern man, accepted the amounts allowed
them by the Board, thereby admitting the
injustice Of their claims. They lacked the
cheek and impudence to urge the matter
further. So did not Mr.. r., who appealed
the case to the court. The case was never
tried on its merits, but by 4 little sharp
practice on tho part Of Mr.. r. and his At
torney in lodging demurrers and other
stumbling blocks, they obtained an order
for $685. costs included, not $3.50 ~ he
says. After drawing the county order, he
(Mr. R. laid himself open to the charge Of
fraud, by obtaining the money under false
pretsnses. And to close the affair, his At
torney was obliged to sue Mr.. r. for his
fees and the costs of the case. The sum
paid to him, 1865, with the SIG paid to
| the other seven, amounts to gust the SUM
stated in my former communication, $212.-
So, = saving to the county of $27.45 by the
"mulishness" of the Board.
Now, to sum up. This ranting hypocrita
has rnsda M q. tam ant th,t vauld hoe tn m
ing over; has sst moi figures correctly without
prompting; and each and every of his ig-
noraat insinuations is given theis direct by
the report Of the Grand Jury ,n1 for him ia
question the reliability Of that report is to
impugn the honor aud integrity Of that
Grand Jury and it, committee of five
good men and true" Meanwhile, Emusic
hath charms" and should Mr.. R. be in
need Of more soothing, the music to Do il
viii b freely Furnished BY the
FIDDLER.
CLoTHING! CLOTHINGi