Turner County herald. (Hurley, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-19??, 1884-02-21
A Few Facts and Figures.


word or two about the redistricting OF
the county by the commissioners at |
their last meeting in January.
The editor of the New Era has de- !
voted about one-half of his paper and,
Swith the assistance of what he calls his
II" sleuth hounds" has labored Il month
Ito get up an excitement on this ques-
zion, but so far it appears to have
Emounted to nothing more than "a tenn
kpest in a teapot
Is it not a little singular, NJ. Editor,
that of the five weekly papers published
in the county, each claiming to repre-
Sent and reflect the sentiment of it's To-
cality, not one word of censure of the
commissioners acts has been. uttered
by one of them, except the New Era,
and besides himself and his so-called
correspondents, not citizen has said a
word.
The readers of the New Era will have
noticed that since the election and up
| to the time OF their meeting in Janu-
airy, the commissioners, who are now
being SO bitterly denounced, were being
lauded to the skies by his fulsome and
loathsome adulation. Why this change?
At that meeting the Parker Ring had
little job on hand which failed to ma
terialize, and hence the ravlngs of the
New Era.
Mr.. Hackett in his last weeks issue,
publishes the election returns of 1882
and also the assessors returns of popu-
lation for 1888 We now propose to
take these statistics and endeavor to
find out what ground there is for the
wholesale denunciation of the commits
sioners' acts, and this cry OF fraud, in
justice. and the jobs of the Old Spav
ined Ring"
The New Era attack upon the COM
missioners contains two charges: First;
that the petition upon which they acted
did not contain one-third OF the legal
voters of the county, and second, that
Y the division was unjust for the reason
hthat it didnot divide the county equally
Jas to territory and population, thereby
fpartially DISTINGUISHING Il portion of
the county. This, we take it, is a fair
Statement of the objections of the New
Era to the commissioners action.
First tl.en, as to the petition not con-
staining one-third of the voters of the
Scounty. The petition contained PIG
A names, and according to Mr.. Piers sta
= tistics published in the New Era, the
voting population of the county as
shown by the assessors returns of last
year is 1880. We admit that PIG is not
r one-third Of $50 any school boy would
: know that. Did the commissioners be,
r lieve it was when the petition was pre-
Y sented to them? 40, they did not; the
e commissioners are not fools enough tt
0 believeany such nonsense, ,andin raising
2 this question Mr.. Hackett proves him
$ self to be the veriest trickster and dem
: agogue. Why did he not quote the Law
: under which the commission acted
n which says that if satisfied that a
least one-third Of the legal voters o
such county as shoacn Jy the last elec
ton returns" Now the last election
as given by the poll books, gives 81
vt ties, of which 2ll is more than one
It third. The commissioners had NJ
!" choice in the matter, they must act. S
II much for the petition.
n As to the "unjust division of tn
Is county," by which the people hav
l. been defrauded and "disfranchised
k by "the Old Spawned Ring" On thi
$, point / wish to present. first, the divi
r. sion as made by the commission. an
K second, the division as proposed by NJ
20 Hackett himself and 399 others in q p,
lie lition presented to the board for tha
K purpose by Messrs. Thielman and Jone
er the chosen representatives of the Pa
d. ker interest.
IL Here are the districts as formed b
q the commissions:
&c II, Danevjlle, 3 townshps-271 votes
- 2 Iarker, 6-l0 townships-36Of votes.
3 Mharl9p so tns ttoTnships:2 votes aos
" 8, Hurley, 3 townshps-2I3 votes.
20 Now there are two bases on which
~ division of the county could be mad
=. one on the basis of territory and tt
- other on the basis of population. 1t
- impossible to combine the two an
- make them equal both in populatio
:. and territory; one or the other must |
y. adopted and the commission chos
~ the division by territory, having regal
- to township lines. That this was wi!
:, will be readily seen by the above tabl
;. as population is constantly changin
~ towns spring up in district sudden
- increasing the voting population; bl
- the territory is permanent. Take fl
~ example districts No. and 4, No
~ has the largest territory but lacks So
~, voting population. Another noticab
- feature IS that while Parker has q
- creased IS in voting population sin
the election in 1882, all the rest ha
increased -Centerville 33, Hurley
and Spring Valley 1872 And it mu
" also be borne in mind that the Gems
K was taken before the new towns
lts hCenterville and Hurley were in ext
ssas' ence.
ngN We now present the districts as til
ng swould have been il Mr.. Hackett's pl
~ had been adopted.
:. MOL. Dancvile. 4 townshipS--36l votes.
III 2, Howard. $40 townShips-2o5 votes.
inf 3. Marion, 3 Clio townshlpS--3i2 votes.
NV 4. Parker. . $40 townships-3Os votes.
8, Childstown-S. VAL townships-30i vot
he This is the Hackett plan. Voters
mt Turner count, look at it! Compare
with the "job" of the sold SPAWN
- Ring" and tell us how you like it! 7
90 New Era man boils over with righteo
: I" Indignation because district No. co
tains only townships with 243 vot
his Nwhile his plan of district No. 2 QIo
elf uiN z,,.,; . O ~ +,,,.,,,b; -. with, 6