The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1895-10-03

10. sought to relieve themselves of re-
spopslbility, Should not count against
them. There had been no legal adjud-
cation OF the quest on and while it was
certain these men were not morally re-
sponslble to make good the county loss,
/ 1t seemed from the facts in the case, that
neither were they legally responsible.
The decision as to their legal RESPONSE
bilIty Is against them.
1t Is our duty now as men to take a
dispassiouate view of the situation, and
| to act with reference to the matter as
man should ID his dealings with man. a
| resume of the transaction may give us
clearer idea of what our duty IN the
| premises is.
| The county had on deposit ID the bank
at the time of its failure, IL round num-
| Ders Sol ,0O0. The dividends paid by the
| assignee were % per cent, of this sum
| thus reducing this sum to something
| over SIS, 5000. At the time the judgment
! was filed, the amount due the county by
| reason or interest and costs, amounted
to about $4,000.
The county took charge of its own
| funds IN 1890, the county board having
selected tAe bank Of the L. Q. Shove
| Banking Co. as the depository. The
1
| and the county apparently did well the
| first year. In 1891 the county board re-
| newed the contract, but did not demand
| a new bond for the safe keeping OF the
| money. When the bank failed there was
| 40 one surety for the county funds un-
! less the suret1es for the preceding year
| could be held. The courts have decided
| that they are responsible.
What the supreme court Gays Is law
| must be regarded as such, though common
| sense, divorced from legal technicaIities
| would suggest that man should be a
| party to contract ID order to be bound
| by its terms. 1t Is quite possible that
| these same men wonld be on the bond as
| sureties If new bond for the new con
tract was required by The county. But
| the law has no right to presume any such
| thing.
The fact is they are held on bond of
| which the law should presume they had
| no knowledge. But this question has
been argued and decided. Now as to the
condition IN which the county is fnanci-
ally interested
BY reason of the loss of its funds the
county had to borrow from the state the
sum of $4,000. That amount is still due
and Is payable January l, 1896. 1t is
the only Indebtedness the county has ex-
| ceeptiLg the bonds given in aid of the
| railway. This Indebtedness will be paid,
when it natures, without any extra levy.
| The county on the first of January next
will be, financially in just as good con-
| dltion as 1t was on the January preceding
the failure of the bank. 1t has recovered
entirely from its loss occasioned by the
failure Of the bank. 1t may seem that
| the fund of $4,000 which was to be q
part of the fund for building court
house, represents shortage, as compared
with the condition of the treasury 10
1892. But since that time a jail and
sheriff's residence have been built at q
cost of $4,000, for which a special levy
| Of only ST 900 was made; the court house
has been practically rebuilt Al a cost of
$4,000 all of which bias been paid out Of
The general fund, and $4,000 of railroad
| Indebtedness has been wiped on.
| People of the county have not felt the
loss of the county funds particle. The
| loss is now made good and our bonded
Indebtedness has been reduced IN the
last four years from $4,000 to $4,000.
We are in better shape than We were in
| 1892.
| These boudsmen did not receive one
single cent for Insuring the county agaInt
| loss. There is no good reason why the
county should demand that individuals
| should make good its losses, any more
than that the poorest depositor should
make like demand. When the county
| invests Its money for profit it should
| take It's chances as cxaw- one does. The
| county invested its own money for profit
aud lost. It should not demand now
that individuals, who had no interest in
! the matter, step IN and make that loss
| good.
The proper thing to do is Is make
settlement whereby the larger portion of
| the Judgment may be remitted. The
| county has made good It's loss; it can
| afford to be magnanimous and just. That
| q few should stand loss sustained by
| population of 10000 people, appears out
| rageous, particularly when these few had
no more personal interest IN the fund
than had the 10000 people. The public
is not unfair or unjust when they under
stand the matters ID issue.
The editor of The Pilot has had no con.
sultatlon with bondsmen, lawyers or any
one with reference to the matter Of this
article. He does not want TO see a few
bear the loss of many when 1t is a common
one. That loss Is now made good The
few shoul1 be made to pay something for
being fools enough to go on a bond
They are wiser now, but should suffer
some punishment for past indlscretlons
The county board has the power to re-
mt large portion of this Judgment
The several members should be assured
by the people that such action would
meet with general approval, and every
one interested should give such personal
assurance. The columns of The Pilot
are open to those who chose to discuss
this matter, but only over the signat ures
of the writer's