Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1878-01-09
GTe RepubHrau.
A Lame Defence.


Democrat has at last aroused from his
Rip Van Wrinkle slumber, and after
yawning, has opened his eyes sufficient
fy to see that something is requisite to
be said in behalf of the Democracy of
this city whose conduct of public at
fairs has been the cause of unfavorable
comment. He accordingly came to
their defence last week, and undertook
to apologize for some of their short
eomings. But his excuses are very
lame. He begs the question with re-
ference to Mr.. Bakers claim against
the city, and does not touch upon its
merits at all. The NEST be can say is
that ga committee of the Board of
Street Commissioners have had the
subject in charge for several weeks
without coming to decision, showing
conclusively that the case is receiving
4 careful consideration. Precisely SO
But why does not the editor tell his
readers how it is that any controversy
betueen Mr.. Baxter and the Board
has arisen? Why does he not inform
them that after making contract for a
bridge to be built accordingto certain
plans and specifications, the Board
varied them at tie request of Messrs.
Habhegger and others, whose lands
are contiguous, and that the extra ex.
penses attending the alterations, do not
benefi. the city one cent? Why does
No. the Democrat tell the whole truth
shout the matter We can answer for
t. It is because the Board, of whose
srookedness we complain, and the con-
tractor and all the other parties inter
ssted, Except the tax payers,) are
Democrats, and "the party will be in
jared by truthful exposure Of the
Whole affair. We say with the Dem.
serat. that if there is anything due
Mr.. Baxter, he should be paid. But
We say further, which the Democrat is
verv careful to not ssy-that the city
should not pay for private improve
nents. If that bridge cost $697 more
than the contract price, as per Mr..
Baxter's original bill; or 81 300 in ex.
cess, as specified in his second bill, the
first business of the Board should be to
ascertain the why and wherefore. Ii
it shall appear that considerable por.
ton of the amount is for work done
especially to benefit private parties,
aad that the city derived no advantage
therefrom, let the fact be known. Why
IL Mr.. Judson Prentice's report upon
The subject suppressed? He was com.
missioned to superintend the work, and
Is competent to throw light upon the
subject. Let the Democrat recur to
the matter again, and either go into
the facts fully, or else admit that what
We have charged as to the favoritism
and irregularity of the Board is true.
Equally unsatisfactory is the Demo
Gratis explanation of the election of Mr.
Finn to the Assembly, which is claim.
Cd to have been ION account Of his con.
version to a new plan of settlement o,
cur railroad debt" Is the Democrat
green enough to believe that Finn
will propose any legislation in accord
anee with that plan? 1t was ruse
successfully played We admit, for the
purpose of obtaining votes, and that
was all. But underlying it all was the
influence and power of the Union
League which his absolute sway over
the Democratic party, as has been dem
onstrated on many occasions heretofore
The Democratic organization, as an In
dependent affair, no longer exists in
WATERFOWL. That and the Union
League are a joint stock concern, te
which the League has contributed the
most votes, and to which has accord
ngly becl awarded the lions share Of
the Offices. The Democrat may quib-
BILE and seek to make the fact appear
otherwise, but it will not succeed. The
editor, himself, though he may dstest
the League, and its movements, cannot
have failed to see that he is powerless
against the Vaccinations of that body,
and that he and such other Democrats
as are hostile to it, are permitted to en-
r.