The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1879-10-30
DEMOCRATIC CRITICISM

DEMOCRATIC CRITICISM.
The Kenosha Democrat sets out to
establish that Mr.. Quarles is not a fit
person To rep esent the 9Th Senatorial
District.
It's first evidence of unitnesS is that
the Republican candidate is an attOr-
i ey for the Railroad company and for
I! the banks. He is II lawyer and aa such
has tried many cases for railroads and
banks. IT this were not the case it
would evidence un1ztaaess. Railroad
companies and banks generally employ
attorneys OF acknowledged reputation,
and the fact stated by the Democrat
| would simply indicate that Mr. Q. has
been successful in the p.actice of his
profession. Il is not true that Mr.. @.
was ever the salaried attorney Of any
railroad or ether corporation. He is
employed by them as by any other eli
ent and owes them no service not COW
cred by the retainer offered with each
case.
| II is averred by the Democrat that
Mr.. @. voted against the bill for the
reduction of interest which was pre-
scented to the last Legislature i" He
voted against it III every shape" says
the Democrat.
Now the facts are that the Judiciary
committee were divided in opinion be-
tween two measures that We're pre-
scented and in ended to accomplish the
same result. The contest on the floor
was which of these bills was best cal
culated to meet the wants of the PEG
pie. When it became evident that the
bill favored by Mr.. Q. could not be
passed he voted for the other. The
Assembly Journal page 1913 shows that
Mr.. @. voted twice for the very bill to
which the Democrat refers. These
votes were in favor Of reconsideration
and on final passage. Here the Demo-
c2ot is contradicted by the record.
The main point of attack in the
aforesaid article seems to be that Mr..
@. was the author of the present tramp
act.
The facts in the case are that six
bills were presented to the last Legis-
lature by different members whose
ayoWed object was to abate the tramp
nuisance These bills We're referred
to the Judiciary committee Of which
Mr. Q. was member. None Of these
bills was in the opinion Of the commit
tee adequate to meet the emergency.
Mr.. Q. was designated by said commit
tee as a subcommittee to prepare
a stringent and effective bill to be re-
ported back as q substitute for these
six measures. This duty Mi. Q. per-
formed, and the bill prepared by him
was sapctioned by the majority of the
committee and was reported as the
bill Of the committee.
How we'll the duty assigned to Mr..
O. was performed is attested by actual
experience during seven months last
past. This period covers the season
when tramps abound.
The records of this county show that
from November, 1877 to Noveinhp,
1878, 964 trampS were inmates Oi the
county Jail. (Rep0rt Of the Board for
1878, page 49, Since March 4th, 1870,
when this law took effect only 30
tramps have been within the jail walls.
For years last past the annual cost
to this county for keeping tramps at
our jail has been upwards Of one thou
sand dollars. Now this great item is
practically eXtinguished. And yet it
is said that advocacy Of a measure
which has saved the people SO much
money saved is the smallest item to
be considered. Since the 4th of March
last the State at large has been practi-
cally relieved Of a danger that threat
ened every hamlet and farm house
along the travelled thoroughfares.
Property has been secure. and the far
mer might leave his wife and family
at home without apprehension.
The same results have been realized
in other counties. And we beg leave
to publish a letter from the Sheriff of
Racine County giving the exact figures
as taken from the official record.
I"SHER1FF's OFFICE RACINE, WIS,
Oct. %. 1879.
g Hon. J. Y. Quorzes:
DEAR SIR:--1n answer to your le'-
ter Of 18th inst, will say:
The number of tramps kept in the
Jail during the II months prior to
March 4th, 1879, was 1850, at an eX-
pense Of 70 cents per tramp. When
ever they applied a second time, we
made complaint against them under
the vagrancy act. and it cost the coun-
| ty four dollars for each man. The
number SO complained Of was 24O. The
number since March 4th is 81 up to
this date. In Burlington there Wore
1875 last year. So far this year there
has not been any. In Union Grove
there were A. So far this year there
has not been any.
If you are the author Of the tramp
law, the tax payers ought to send you
again. AS far as the Sheriffs are con-
cerned, you are the means of beating
them out Of thousands of dollars.
To tell the facts, your tramp law
beat me out Of at least 1900.
| Yours truly,
JAMES FIELDING"