Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1879-03-12

Our understanding of the objections tc
the law is acquired by a careful review Of
the enactment 10 the light Of current com
plants which are exciting the people o
Armstrong county. 1t is alleged:
1st.-That the law forces upon the people
of Hutchinson and Armstrong counties al
immediate consolidation Of those two c 'un
ties. 10 disregard of the desires Of the peopl.
while 1t provides that the electors Of the
counties Of Hanson and DaYison, adjoining
shall come together at their respective
county seats on the second Tuesday in Sep
TENDER aud vote upon the consolidation
proposition. II either one of the last nance
counties shall decide by a majority vote
against: consolidation then there shall be nc
consolidation Of the counties of Dawson
and Hanson; whereas the electors OF Arm:
strong and Hutchinson counties are denied
a like privilege. BY reference to the law
we find that this inconsistency exists within
it.
2d.-That the law undertakes to sweep
out of official existence all the officers OF
Armstrong county with the exception OF
justices of the peace and constables) and
~installs all the officers of Hutchinson as the
officers of the consolidated county; while
In the case Of Hanson and Dawson counties,
should the people decide to consolidate, the
same law provides that all offices shall be-
come vacant aud that an election of new
officers shall be held by all the electors OF
the consolidated county. An examination
Of the law shows that this complaint is also
we'll founded.
3d.-That the law provides that Arm
strong county shall turn over TO Hutchinson
county all money 10 it's treasury and that
all money due to Armstrong county shall
be paid into the treasury of Hutchinson
county; that Hutchinson county assumes
the debts of Armstrong county. This too
we find to be the purport Of the enactment
In this connection the people Of Armstrong
county argue that they become responsible
for their proportion of the debt of Hutchin-
son county. and that, while the assets OF
Armstrong county are equal to it's liabilities,
the outstanding and %unprovided for debt of
Hutchinson county amounts to between
$1,000 and $4,000. They do not feel like
being made responsible for any portion of
an Indebtedness which they had no share in
mourning. Having managed their own al:
fairs economically and judiciously. they
hold that the ex%travagance Of another coun-
~ should not be made a burden upon them.
We ind that the came law which appears
to fasten q share Of the debt of Hutchinson
county upon the people of Armstrong
county. specifies 10 the case of Hanson and
Dawson counties that. should consolidation
occur, each of those two counties shall besr
discharge its own indebtedness aud ip
no event shall any portion of the debt Of
one be paid by the people of the other.
These are the swroDgs and errors" which
Mr.. Daboll calls Upon Us to state, and We
have given them so Ear % We arc informed
upon the subject. There may be other
which have not reached Us.
The bill appears to have been constructed
the design Of making things % pleas
ant and easy 20 possible for the counties Of
Hanson and Dawson and With
the further design Of placing all the burden
ofthe enactment upon Armstrong county.
pointed out the glsrinp Inconsistencies
md the u%nconcealed bias Of the bill repeat
IDLY during its progress through the legis.
|ature, but o. 1t had been made the special
measure about which the various trades and
Jobs and tricks of the cunning were cen.
'ered, there was no opportunity TO rescus