The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1889-09-14
THE BO0DLER BUsJNESS.

only that the criminal charges would neve
be maintained against the delinquent of
GERS. The judgment of the circuit coul
has fully justified that position, for the Grim
inal cases all fell to the ground--fat, an
that decision has never been questioned
The FREE TRADER never denied that thos
men got moneys that did not rightfull
belong to them; but maintained that a
those moneys had all been voted them, O
the taking of it approved time and tim
again by the Board of Supervisors, tn
benefclaries OF the Boards bounty, or neg
ligence, could only be reached by civi
process to make them disgorge. This ha
been done, the men have disgorged an,
the proceeding has the approval of all men
no doubt.
But when these proceedings were al
o7er-except the case of Milligan now IL
the Appellate Court on appeal by the coun
ty,-a member of the Board, and member
of the committee appointed to hunt down
the boodlers-the biggest mouthed man OF
the whole gang,-comes and pockets 81 900
the gift of the Board, over and above his
pay, because he had spent mis- own valuable
time In the case.
The law says distinctly that no supervisor
as member of the Board, shall receive any
pay or compensation, directly or indirectly
except his mileage and per diem for days
actually devoted to county board business.
Was not the acceptance of that $1,000 by
Warren II. Norton of Earl as much hood
lerism as the taking of money, as charged,
not allowed by law by the late Treasurer,
Sheriff and Probate CLERK Was there any
difference If Milligan ct al. are boodlers
is not Warren Fl. Norton one also, both
having drawn from the county treasury and
converted to their own use moneys the law
says they shall not be allowed to receive to
convert to their own use This is the mean
ing of the resolutions of the town of Free
dom condemning that $1,000 payment to
Norton, -resolution passed in April but
just now presented to the Board.
1t was also the question propounded to
Mr.. Moloney when,on Norton motion (see
the gall" of the MANI, the resolutions were
referred by the Board to the man who had
recommended the payment of the $1,000.
If Norton were capable of any con ception
of the decencies of the situation he would
not have made the motion at all, or would
have had 1t referred to some other man if
only to save appearances and to avoid the
criticism that an approving opinion would
be sure to create, no matter how strong 1t
might be.
But Mr., Maloney's oplonion is not a
strong one, 1t entirely avoids the point
1t simply says that the county board and
not the legislature Is the proper body to
fix the supervisors compensation
Is not the question, however true.
Can an officers salary be arbitrarily in
creased or diminished during his term of
office ? 1t certainly cannot Now, while
1t may be true that the legislature cannot
fix the supervisors pay at So so per day,
such has been the pay of supervisors for
years and years In this county. Custom,
even In the absence of express resolution,
would fix 1t at that figure, 1t has been &C
copied by all superv isors as their legal pay
Norton himself had accepted II as his pay
tor years before and during the very year
of this investigation. How, then, can 1t be
held, In this case, that since the county
board has right to fix Its own pay, there
fore the payment of $1,000 as additional
pay is legal 1t is absurd.
Mr.. Moloney also avoids the question,
Can supervisor be employed as attorney
or assistant and paid extra compensation
for services, to perform which he was ap-
pointed as a supervisor, forming part of
the Boards committee appointed for that
purpose ? The law says supervisor shall
receive as pay for his services mileage and
per diem but "no other allowance or
emolument, directly or Indirectly, for any
purposes whatever
Norton was member of the Board dur
ing the whole period of this investigation
and, therefore, could not lawfully be paid
other money than the per diem which
he had accepted for those services
lrlOr 10 Ills tAhluS Tue fl,uVO uo udu dC-
cepted per diem as supervisor for every day
served and his mileage to and from Ottawa,
and In accepting that sum, he confesses to
be acting as supervisor, for If not acting as
supervisor had he any legal light to draw out
this per diem money allowed and pocketed
by him In addition to the $1,000
The logic Is irrisistable As supervisor,
he, as Investigator, co uld receive no other
pay than as supervisor; or, as Investigator
he was not entitled to per diem and mileage
as supervisor.
If any officer can not afford to act as
such for the pay the law allows, he should
resign. II Norton could not afford TO act |
as Investigator of officials accounts for the |
pay the law allowed, he should have re-
signed from the committee.
The other members of Norton's commit. |
lee served for the pay the law allowed to
them as supervisors.
Norton made a grab for 81 900 extra
boodler fashion-snd got 1t and still keeps |
Il. How much better Is he than Milligan
Or Bartels or Raymond whom he has
branded as boodlers?
Another Farmer Roped In.
Fad Claim the wealthy farmer and stock |