The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1882-07-15

the nnance committee could provide the
money. Belllnghausen thought it true econo-
my to borrow money and pay the bills and by
paying promptly get supplies at the best fig.
ures. The question was dropped without
action.
Forrestal presented a petition 10 straighten
the line dividing the election precincts in
LaSale Referred
Lauf presented report from the road and
bridge committee lnstruchng the county at
torney to defend the county IN the Utica bridge
suit begun recently in Chicago, on points no
doubt familiar to our readers, the FREE
TRADER having given the points in tull when
the suit was commenced. The attorney was
also authorized by the report to employ as.
sistance with the approval Of the chairman)
If deemed necessary Flaherty wanted this
authority taken from the attorney, and lodged
only IN the chair, as it wasn't clear that the
county desired to make any defense to the suit.
Walter HOge thought 1t wasn't a square
deal' to make the county pay the expense OF
fighting this suit. Thereupon followed dis
cusslon Of the case, begun by Mr. Lewis. He
SAID he was aware that in all these scrapes
there is "scape-goat" and Deer Park has
been credited with being that goat but Deer
Park he insisted, Is entirely innocent of this
particular suit, the blame of which, If any.
where, lies in this Board. Five years ago he
tried to keep the county's fingers out of it, but
the Board would appropriate money IN aid of
the bridge, and it was not right now that
Deer Park should be accused of unfalrness.
He thereupon entered into detailed history
of this whole business showing from the alb.
stract of the original record that Deer Park
had never taken any part in the construction
of the bridge; that Utica had recognized this
fact, by Incorporating 1t into private con.
tract with the Bridge Company; and that the
sharp practice to spread the cost of the bridge
on the county was done by the Bridge Com.
pany itself Deer Park, having no interest in
the bridge could not, of course, fight the
Bridge Company at Chicago, though the town
had employed an attorney to watch Its inter.
ests having heen made party to the SUIT;
though 1t was admitted that II the stIucture
was removed Deer Park would no doubt now
JON Utica and the county in putting bridge
there.
Griffin, of Utica, said Utica had paid her
money for the bridge, and had secured prob
ably the best bridge in this county. Utica
proposes to have the bridge remain The
county has this interest in making a defense:
if the bridge is taken away she loses what
money she has put into 1t, and Will be com.
PEELED to make a further appropriation to
build another Utica has been guilty Of no
sharp practice. She has spent 800 on the
bridge and took legal advice at every step In
the erection of It. The error was one of legal
judgment Fischer, of Mendoza, thought that
If Utica and Deer Park didn't have interest
enough in the bridge to fight the company, the
latter ought to be allowed to remove the
bridge; and moved that the defense as to the
county be confined only to the county attorney.
Mr.. Gilbert, one of the attorneys for Deer
Park when the case was in the state courts,
said he had spent four years in proving Deer
Park was not to blame in the controversy and
proved 1t! The case Is plain one-not to be
worried over, but attended to and defended by
the county vigorously. The county's interest
in it Is half the cost Of bridge-say $17,50O
if this one be duplicated. When this bridge
was built the county was not compelled to pay
half its cost, though it did give Utica on this
account some $1,000; now 1t would be COM
PEELED to pay one.half should new one be ne
cessary The company say they want to take
down this bridge because 1t has been swindled;
that 1t came here from foreign state and
was ignorant of state law. These are not the
facts. Their agent canvassed these towns to
secure vote for a bridge; he consulted La
Sale county attorneys, and employed them to
assist him IN working up the case. They
were not deceived. They wanted to builda
bridge; they knew the towns could not con-
stltutionally pay for it, but they went In and
built it expecting some one would pay for 1t,
"they didn't care damn who," as the agent
put it, The company cannot now have
case. They have accepted money from the
county, running their risk to get the balance,
and now after five years they are debarred by
limitation. The facts III the case if properly
presented are bound to beat the Bridge Com
pany.
The report was at length adopted, Fischer,
Forrestal, Franks and Parr alone voting no.
On motion of Dunavan a resolution was
adopted instructing the clerk to assess certain
c. B. & @. land In Leland, used as depot
not included IN the assessment Of 1880 or 1881.
Several petitions tor reductions in assess.
ment were referred, when the Board adjourned
to Thursday at9A An.
THURsDAX-FOURTH DAY.
Hikok reported the expenses of holding
the judicial election in June last at $796,20.
On Ia is rannrt the 1Innstlnn camn n as To where