Daily Republican., 1890-04-30

day, took public action on the petitlori
and by vote Of seven to four positive.
ly refused to make the reduction. Mr.,
Wier, Mr.. Jordan aud Mr.. Grub were
Conscientious in their votes upon thii
question, and could not vote for a re-
duction, because there was an implied
contract 'that the sheriff was to re-
ceive thirty cents day for boarding
prisoners. 1t is fair TO presume thai
had these snme conscientious members
have known that the sheriffs bill
would sum up to the high water
mark OF $4,000 their condolences
would hardly have been 90 acute. But
to their great surprise 1t did reach the
figures named, and what was to be
done about III Looking at the footing
up OF the sum total they frankly said
we cannot pay that bill this year with
an election pending In the county, and
yet We have given the sheriff our
word OF honor by q public vote that
his rate of board per day should not
be cut down,
But the ingenuity Of o New Castle
County Levy Court Is one Of those
mysterious things past finding out.
After incubating over the bill for three
or four weeks they Matched out plan
OF how to knock IS, 600 from the sler.
lbs board bill without Q reduction of
the rate per day comes to open view.
A member Of the committee to whom
the sheritPs bill was referred, when
spoken TO In regard to his plan OF re-
duclng, said: 'Oh, we did not cut
down on the rate allowed, wo gave
him THE sherifi) the full thirty cents
per day." Pressed a little harder Tor
reduction was made without reducing
the rate, the plan was fully revealed
and here 1t Is: Tho sheriff was asked
TO produce the commitments of prison
ers to his keeping as vouchers that he
had the number Of prisoners claimed,
This was an unexpected demand
upon the sheriff. He had lost, mislaid
or perhaps destroyed the commitments
after the prisoner 8. terms had expired
and he could not produce them,
In the absence Of these important
pieces Of paper the sheriff was not
only locked the charge allowed by
law for receiving commitments, which
was in itself tri1ing but he was
locked the whole board of that pris.
oner, no matter If he was there six
months, more or less, which amounted
to tremendous sum in the aggregate.
We have very grave doubts II this
plan OF reduction will strike honest
minds favorably. Every tax payer
wanted reduction of their taxes, and
nearly all thought that the sheriff was
getting too much money Tor feeding
prisoners. Many OF them, as before
stated, had petitioned the Levy Court
for reduction OF tne sherifi's allow
ance in the per diem rate allowed, but
we question II the plan of reduction
will receive hearty endorsement
from any considerable body of tax.
payers. They did not ask the Levy
Court for reduction or the ground of
mere technicality, an accident by
the sheriff or by the application of
sharp practices, but on the ground of
merit.
Vouchers indeedl Commitments as
vouchers are wanted are theyl Since
when did our county guardians ret so
particular in passing allowances No
vouchers were asked ior in making
| allowances Tor magistrates and consta.
bles, and Tor Chief Swiggetts commit
ment bill. Why were vouchers not
called for In their casesY Is the face
of Sheriff Aliens bill not as correct
and honest, without further vouchers,
as the face Of the magistrates and con-
stables bills, without vouchers? Why
should the Sheriff be subjected to such
a pairing down of his bill and all others
20 without questioning?
But we have had reduction in the
Sheriif's bill OF about IS, 600. Is that
not what the people wanted, asks the
Levy CourtY Yes, it is; but they
wanted il upon It's merits. They did
not ask for 1t by any thimble rigging,
sharp practice methods such as those
practiced in the reduction of the
Sheriii's allowance.
The result of the matter is thai
Sheriff Allen appears before the pub
J vantage OF, not treated fairly and will
have increased sympathy from thu
people. 1t would have been manly IL
the Levy Court to have said: Sheriff
Allen, you are getting too much 70
, boarding prisoners at thirty cents
day; we must cut you down to twent
cents. He might have protested againt
? 1t, but the public would have approve
Of it. This would have been yer
A different from discrediting the sheriff
/ account and cutting down his allow
a ances by sharp dodge. The peopl
4 will not approve Of the latter.