River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1891-05-21
5, WISCONSIN, THURSDAY, MAY Fl. 1891.

ED. JOURNAL: There is perhaps no
need of paying any further attention
to your Spring Lake correspondent.
although he is out in your last Journal
with another article of nonsense in
regard to the leper case in his town;
| still with your permission | will say a
| few words by way of reply.
| | see that | am considered ungentle-
manly by him, and what | stated sun
| true insinuatiOns, and my version of
the case is 'one-sided, incomplete,
contradictory and ridiculous" / won
der who is most likely to be correct in
| this matter, the correspondent or /!
My statement was based upon facts
obtained from Mr.. Nelson while at his
| place and from records in the Registers
office, while his according to his first
article about the matter is based upon
his belief-and reports.
| If your correspondent had less ego.
tism and conceit and more common
sense he would not be prancing around
in newspaper columns about matters of
which he has as little knowledge as
he seems to have OF this leper case.
have not concealed the ia It that
the County Board of 1889 abolished
the Co. Poor system; the fact that they
did so was published at the time, and
when | alluded to the visit TO the Nell
son family in company with others
was right when | said we did that as
Co. Poor Commissioners, which the
resolution passed by the Board will
show.
The commissioners did not aid the
parties because they were paupers,-
or poor persons, any more than the
town of Spring Lake has,-but did it
to keep them out OF debt and as before
stated; and although we knew of the
fact that Mr.. Nelson was disposing of
his property, how could we under our
system, interfere with his dealings
otherwise than to withdraw the aid,
when the proper authorities could see
about the property.
When your correspondent says he
fails to see anything in his first artl.
Gle on this subject in the nature of an
accusation, think he is ridiculous.
The very first two lines of it is TO the
effect that the notice to the Board was
an "enigmatical communication" We
are thus accused of having given an
obscure, darkly expressed notice--and
| am not the only one who interprets
the article as an accusation. The no.
tice stated that the family had prop
erty, to help make clear that the
county was not legally bound to aid
them. The property having been sold
under circumstances before mentioned
does not fasten any blame on the COM
missioners any more than it would on
private person doing the same as
they did
To conclude with allow me to say,
that it seems to me, no small quantity
of gall can be contained in a man--if
in fact the correspondent is man--to
write like he does about this matter.
He finds all sorts of fault with my YER
sion of the case, but does not help US
out much with his version of it. and
is unkind enough to tell falsehOod
besides, when he says we notified the
town board after Mr.. Nelson had left
with the proceeds of his property, that
the family had means of their own.
Mr.. Nelson was at the place when the
notice was written. But enough about
this now.
l have no time at present to deal
as fully as | ought with the slush your
correspondent dishes up about met
has more than satisfied me that treat
ment at some state institution would
be beneficial to him.
Following is the resolution passed
by the Co. Board in 1889 directing the
agents of poor in regard to the leper
case:
Resolved, by the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Pierce, that the Agents of the Poor
be and they are hereby authorized and directed
to take such action as in their judgment the
case of John Nelson family in town of Spring
Lake may require"
This will prove, l think, that | was
right when | conveyed the 'impres
sion" that we were act ing only in the
capacity as Co. Poor Commissioners
when visiting the family, and not as
your correspondent would like the
public to believe. j. b. j.
Ellsworth, May is, 1921.