Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1898-02-12

would not get it. 1t was also well
known that Barclay was rightfully
elected Hence the desire for delay.
But the trial terminated in the vindi-
cation of Barclay in time to defeat
Olson's sheme. So new scheme had
to be tried: The old board must give
him the contract. Mr.. Marquand was
SENT for, because he had no intention,
excuse or desire to come of his own
motion. He was clandestinelY brought
to town and induced to assist in
awarding job to Olson. He and Mr..
Swiggett did this in the morning, as
the Independent says. Neither of
them was NEW member and no new
or old member assisted them in the
working of Olson's scheme. Mr.. Bar
clay was the only NEW member and
he acted in conjunction with Mr.. Hin
shaw. They let their contract in the
afternoon. The NEW board this year
1S9S) also let this years contract in
the afternoon but they gave it to the
highest bidder whereas Barclay and
HinShaw let all contracts to the low
est bidder.
Mr.. Marquand acted only for OlsOn's
benefit. He never attempted to sit
again. He was ousted by law and took
no appeal.
We fully believe that Mr.. Marquand
was over pursuaded and reluctant to
do this. The Olson greed and the
partisan bigotry of his associates
brought this stigma upon him. 1t
was collision. No innocence of ig
norance can excuse the participants.
i was, and is yet, plain steal and
there is no other name for it. 1t was
in consonance with the avarice of the
beneficiary and the legal editor of the
Independent knows by experience and
observation that this is true. In
stances are not wanting as he well
knows.
This being the case, how supremacy
thin it is for the Independent to say
that 'Mr. Olson has never expected
more than to be paid according to
contract, IF he had the legal contract"
1t is all a farce. Everybody knows
better. Let US have no more of this
granny Cruel which turns the stom-
achs of all decent people.
That the present Independent edi-
tor is but little better is proven by his
defense of the steal and his haste to
characterize taxpayers who object to
being robbed as ''peSterOuS meddlerS;''
| but calling names are the only thing
there is left for him to do. Ridicule
of 'Judge Barclay and Judge Hin
shaw" will not change the facts. Facts
are the things that count.
Hinshaw and Barclay made con-
tract, the legality of which is not
questioned. They paid promptly ac-
cording to their contract. No other
course would have been honest or con-
sistent and that they decided upon
this course in ''ten seconds" (meaning
seconds, we suppose) is a credit to
their integrity. No other course
would have shown a prudent regard
for county interests.
Let us reverse the case: Suppose
Marquand had been sustained and
Barclay ousted by the District Court.
Does any one suppose that Swiggett
and Marquand would have heSitated
to pay Olson on the contract they
gave him. No, they would have de-
cided it in five seconds. No doubt
that was decided upon and was their
object before hand. Would they have
refused to pay WORLD upon the con-
tract of Barclay and Hinshaw? Ger
tainly. There is just one more ques-
tion: In that case would Hinshaw
have played the ''dog in the manger'
to please any one as SwiggeJt did, APP
parently, for Olson's sake? No, and
those who know him are certain of it.
A New Patriotic Song.