Iowa state bystander. [volume] (Des Moines, Iowa) 1894-1916, 1899-01-13
.COURT T HOUSE SITE.

! COUR T HOUSE SITE.
Great stress is being placed by the
river front people on the proposition
that the old court house site will be
sold and the proceeds Of such sale will
be applied to the partial payment Of
the cost of building the new court
house. Indeed 1t is by this time clear
70 every person who has followed their
general line of argument that their
whole case rests upon the power they
claim the board of supervisors have to
dispose of the old site. Upon this ar
gument rests their whole case. If il
be true the board of supervisors have
the power to sell the old site and a
purchaser can be secured at price
approximating the amount 1t Is
claimed 1t can be sold for they have,
It is admitted by all, an argument
to which the already overtaxed people
Of Polk county will lend a willing
ear. If, on the other hand, the claims
OF the friends Of the present location
that the board Of supervisors have not
the power to sell the old site, the river
front people are left without single
claim which will bear the test Of close
investigation or discussion. It: Is es-
pecially unfortunate for the tax payers
Of the county, the courts. were pre-
vented by the river front attorneys
from being allowed the opportunity to
decide the question before election day.
Had the river front advocates cooper
ated with Mr.. Hunter in his efforts to
secure decision from the courts by
the 18th of January, the voters would
have had a positive and unequivocal
decision from the district court ten
days before election day. An exami-
nation of the arguments presented to
the board Of supervisors by Mr.. Evans
and his associates at the time the ef-
fort was being made by Mr.. Hunter
to have the question submitted to- the
court, shows their only contention was
that there was not time before election
to get a decision from the supreme
court. This is perhaps true, but we
believe the average voter would have
been satisfied with, a decision from
the district court. Especially so In
view of the fact that very small
percentage of the cases which have
been appealed to the supreme court
from the Polk county district court In
the past five years have been reversed.
Indeed, the long experience and legal
knowledge possessed by the judges of
the Polk county district court is SO
we'll known and their opinions are re-
garded with such respect the attorneys
who practice at the Polk county bar
hesitate and very seriously consider
their cause before an appeal is taken
from the decisions Of the judges Of the
Polk county district court. AS the
matter now stands the voter not being
versed in legal knowledge is compelled
very largely in deciding on the prob
abilities OF the county's power to sell
the court house site to depend upon
the opinions which have been rendered
upon the question by the various at
storneys who have 30 far expressed
themselves upon the point OF law In
-X0lYed. It may be we'll there fore TO-
consider the evidence which has been
produced upon this point. On the side
of the proposition that the site can
be sold we understand seven attorneys
have expressed themselves in the af-
firmative. With two exceptions these
attorneys are either closely identified
with the east side faction or are TAX
ing very active part in the river
front campaign. The greater number
Of these gentlemen when giving it as
their opinion the court house can be
sold have been careful to state it can
be sold only for public purposes and
that it cannot be sold for private pur-
poses. -s- %.s
~ On the side of the proposition that
the old site cannot be sold the By
stander is advised the following we'll
named attornyes have given it as their
opinion that the county has not the
power to sell the court house site:
Hon. C. C. Nourse, Hon. A. B. Cum
minis, Judge G. C. Cole, N. T. Guernsey,
I. M. Earle, w. H. Baily, Crom Bowen,
C. A. Dudley, o. M. Brockett. With
out disparagement to the gentlemen
who have expressed contrary opin-
ion the prepohderance, not only in
number but also in character and
weight is on the side of the proposition
LudL LuCi plCSCAl SASC CdAAOL VIC oOAus
It is safe to say If the movement to
build new court house had been
made during the hard times, from 1893
to 1896, it would have been overwhelm-
ingly defeated. Since times are better
and money easier to procure an era of
extravaganza in expenditure of the
public money has been inaugurated.
Money Is seeking Investment; is much
more easily obtained and the tempta-
tion to extravaganza is great. Let us
take look ahead and see how much
in cold, hard dollars it is going to cost
the tax payers of Polk county if the
proposed expenditures for court house
and new site are made. In the first
place it has already been voted to ex-
pend for building court house, $4O0,-
900; bonds are to be issued running
twenty years. The interest thereon
computed at 4 per cent per annum
equals $320,000. It is now proposed to
issue bonds for a new site in the
amount of 100000; interest thereon
for twenty years at per cent per an
mum, $4,000. Total for bonds and in
terest, 100000.