Custer chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, Black Hills, D.T. [S.D.]) 1880-1890, 1881-01-29

have been all right ifthat had been in
tended. But you say it was II mistake
on the part,oftl,osc who draw the. bill.
! hope it was, hut how it that You
published it without comment on its
cussedEcss, or if you Thought it q mis-
take, why did you not say so. Now
come Burke, own up that that bill was
intended to pass that way, until it was
found out that the people would send in
Il rcinonstrancc
You next go on to state that you were
surprised that any one should think
that the propositions for road, court
rately, and then at the end ofthc article
crawfish out of the whole thing by say
ing you did not know anything about
it. When You commenced the article
you say you learned from the county
authorities that each propo,i ion was to
be voted on separately, then you will
one does not put it that way. | wonder
ifthat was a mistake what county au-
thoritics did. You see | saw Crary, cha; /.
man of the board, before | wrote to you
first, and called his attention 10 the bill,
that is, to the holding Of election in
Custer City and the voting separately on
the propositions, and he said the voting
place would be changed to the various
precincts, hut as for voting on the pro.
positions separately, he said, no one had
amy right f. think they would be voted
on separately, us it never was intended.
Now You say Ia Dtis contcmplltes differ
ent. Wei lever hciri of a bill
being drown and contemplating just the
rcver g iuln what it says, all the way
throgga IT you can tell me how We
ar. to know what il contemplated. YOU
can just rs well come out and acknowl-
edge that. that bill was intended to pass
just as YOU first published it. Bnt when
the county authorities. v"u speak of,
found out the people would not stand it,
they concluded to draw up "A new bill
with the Objectionable features left out
ut least, they have rcmedied the only
two points i'm il that | kicked about, (aS
you say. | am satisfied. 50 far as the
bill is concerned, the new one sill give
Il fair chance to vote on all the PROPOSE
tons, and ii Il majority vote for them, |.
for one, will not whine.
| promised You to make the letter
short rs | had been away, and this will
be late getting in to your paper. | will
tell you next week why the road part is
Il fraud, and answer the rest of your
article.
l.. b. Peso.
As Mr.. Reno simply rciterates, in his
letter of this week what he had already
brought ont the week before, we shall
be obliged to await his objections to the
road promised for next week. As We
felt quite as much interested in seein.
the bill reconstructed, so IL to conform
with the intent o! the drawers. as die
MIR. Reno, ii was corrected and shown
to us just before it was sent of, and the
election clause was changed 10 re a,
Custer county instead of Custer cit.
The form of he ballot WAS made rs fol
lows: For funding Indebtedness, Yes
For building road. Yes; For building
court house and Jail, YES; with a cor
responding number of negative votes
We don't think that the people Will bt
inclined to adopt Mr.. keno's theory
that il was the intent of the couut,
commissioners to PIT up a job on them
as they will all readily see that if sucl
had been their scheme, they would
never have let the CHRONICLE get hole
OF ii and publish it We believe that
they desired % have every voter vel
posted upon the bill before it was sen.
away and it certainly seems to hay,
been pretty thoroughly discussed, which
is right. When We contemplate addin.
10 our debt, every voter should be mad,
thoroughly acquainted with the why
how, and for what.