The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1889-03-07
The Sheriff Question
of ZelegrabA-C Courier:


In an article In your last weeks issue
you call the attention of the taxpayers
of this county to the number Of tramps
who have been confined in the county
jail since the meeting Of the County
Board. This statement is undoubtedly
correct as far as it goes, but covers only
a part Of the ground. AS the tax payers
of this county are directly interested in
this question, it seems to me that in or
der to act understandingly, they should
have all the principal facts in regard to
matter placed before them. 1t cannot
be expected that all the details of this
case can be given in an article of such
length as could consistently be published
in one issue of your paper; but think
can get in enough to give the tax
payer pretty good idea Of now the case
stands. [ will commence by stating
that at an annual meeting of the County
Board, held on the tenth day Of No
vember, 1885, the salary Of the Sheriff
was fixed at 81 900 per annum, notice
thereof having been given at the No
vember session Of 1884, as required by
law This salary was in lieu of all fees
and compensation for Sheriff, under
Sheriff and deputy Sheriff, for such
services as the county shall be liable,
but does not include board Of prisoners
AS the compensation Of the Sheriff for
the board Of prisoners was fixed by the
statutes, and as no authority was vested
in the County Board to include this in
his salary, they had to leave it out,
This salary was to take effect at the time
our next Sheriff entered upon the duties
of his office.
At the January meeting Of 1887,
when our next Sheriff entered upon the
duties Of his office, and at the time this
salary Of $1,000 per annum was to take
effect, there existed. difference Of
opinion among the members of the
Board, some Of the members claiming
that, as this tramp and vagrant act wa
still in force, our Sheriff could Eli the
Jail with tramps and Migrants, and as
this salary did not cover the board Of
prisoners, large bill could be run up
which the county would be obliged to
pay. And as the county had previous
ly had some sad experience in this d.
rection, committee was appointed to
confer with the Sheriff and ascertain if
some compromise or contract could be
made that would also include board of
prisoners Said committee, after con-
ferring with said Sheriff, reported that
said Sheriff would perform all services,
including board Of prisoners, forS3 500,
and no less A motion was then car
RED to contract with the Sheriff at that
figure. This was also done the next
year for the same reasons.
At the session Of our Legislature,
held in 1887, several amendments were
passed changing somewhat the COM
plexion Of this tramp and vagrant act,
giving the County Board authority to
fix the fees Of officers and magistrates
who arrest and commit tramps, Chang
ing the form Of commitment, making it
a misdemeanor for officers to conspire to
arrest tramp with the purpose of in
creasing the emoluments of their office
or to encourage tramp to remain within
their Jurisdiction, and several other
changes which we haven't room to give
in this statement.
When the County Board, at its last
session, reached the Sheriff's salary
question, they could not resist the temp.
tation to again appoint committee to
ascertain how much 1t would take this
time to get our Sheriff to perform in a
proper manner the duties of his office,
and were informed that he would take
$500, and also that he was sorry that
he had ever promised to take that sum.
We thought from this that he must have
paid out as much money to get the Of
fee as some of his predecessors, and,
like them, would of course expect to
have the taxpayers reimburse him, but
as many of the long suffering taxpayers
entered protest against being longer
compelled to buy our Sheriff his office,
we thought it exnediant t0 tru soma