The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1877-05-10
KENOSHA Nay 1877

siderable thought. And as we wish To
DO as 1mpersonal as possible in our
communications and have no desire
for any controversy with Tax Payer we
shall. mahH-no comments on his article
CT mention the name Of amy individual,
except, as'might be imperatively nee
essary to make oneself understood bv
your readers.
| IL IS the county expenditure we wish
to'dlscuss ;: but to- show the absur(lity
OF lighting such question over the
back, OF John Lucas, before we proceed
tosths economy Of the question, it will
be,necessary to give some explanation
to the tax payers Of the county, of the
circumstances that have led up to- what
Tax Payer calls ''the extortionate char
ges4of the then sheriff, John Lucas.
Now Mr., Lucas might, or might not.
have brought in o. most extravaoant
bill against the county, bat the facts,
as, L understand them, will not bear
OUT the charges made SO fippantly
against hlmsduringthe Last six months
The facts in the case ane about as
follows: Up to the first year of John
Lucas official life. such expenses as
had been incurred by the county officer
forthe board and lodging of transient
paupers, had been charged to- the gen
eral account.
In January, 1871, Mr.. Lucas entered
upon his duties as sheriff and from
that time the expenses so incurred have
been the subject OF a separate and indi-
vIddal account
The frsttyear he kept "a Warrants
OF Psupers'(?); all Of them, I believe,
we're brought to the jail by officers as
Migrants, and held by hiaa, as I'm duty
bound, as> prisoners, but discharged,
Unoticiallgy nnder the advice Of the
authorities on their promising to leave
the city. For these he made the usual
charge Of fifty cents fog commitment
and twenty five cents for discharge.
For their. board, Of thnee meals and
a0dglng, he charged one dollar each.
W hen this account was, presented to
the County Board they decided these
men, not to be criminals or Migrants,
but transient paupers, and disalloWed
MI. Lucas change, for committing and
dlscharglng, accordingly.
The next year, 1872, these. transient
.paupers, were sent to the Hairless and
Jaeger TaVern3 at a cost to the county
Of one dollar per head. In 1873, MI
T0t2rdA then Being sheriff, MI. Hairless
and Mr.. jaeger having refused to keep
a certain class of these travellers for
less than ONE dollar, and fifty cents
each, q bargain was made between him
CIetara) anQthe county, by which he
was to board these paupers at the price,
OF on9 d0llar each, without regard to
quantity or Qu&litF, But this year,,
1t seems, transient paupers had nOtl
become sufficiently numerous to call
for any PARTICULAR notice. The bill
was paid without comment and the%
same agreement virtually continued to |
the end Of Mr.. Tetard's term of office.
J&nuarYg 1875, Me. Lucas commenced
his second. term Of office, and by order
Of the County Agent, acting Of course
under the instructions of the countyj
board, continued to- board tranBientI
paupers Ga the same terms his pfede-
cess0r had boarded them. This tUings4
us down. to the tiIne of which Tax I
Payer w1lItes, th0year 1876.
Now whilst Tax Payer ln2kes all
substantially true statement OF facts
with regard to the charges Of Mr.. Lucas
for kaaping these people wh0,wereI
from this time to be known>in OlrUl,
Yern3allar as tramps! and whilst the |
expense TO the county seems large, is
largo--and is expressive of soInuch oil
which few OF our people take any
cogrl1ance wrateyer-I submit. that |
there is but little justice in the contnu- |
ed repetition Of these broad charges
against John Lucas, for the reason that
ME- Lucas was not only following pre-
cedent, but acting upon expressed
agreement with the county
Was there anything wrong in this ?
\ es, undoubtedly, but not more In MI.
Lucas than in the county agent and the
Go. board and but very little in either.
Was Mr.. Lucas bill extravegant
under the circumstances Yes, Il
unhesitatingly answer again. But Mr.
Lucas was doing only what every mar,
almost in Ken0sha county would have
done under the same circumstances
making the most out OF has. opportl1nity.
For what else did be work for the
office, but to make money out of it.
Tramps,t to him, were a.diXiHe interposi-
ton, and few men are then, but would
have blamed him in their hearts had
he not made the most Of this opportun-
ity.
The tax payers Of the county should
LEARN lesson from this, instead of
!condemning MI. Lucas for an act made
plausible, if not just, by common con-
sent with interest.
1t cost him possibly. 500 dollars to.
Iget the Office, few men are foolish
enough to spend such an amount who,
have nothing La view by way of repay
'ment
The very fact Of the use Of money
being necessary to secure an election
Ito any official position is a disgrace. to
US as q people, and yet few men are
put in nomination for any office, from