The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1899-02-09
THE COUNTY BOARD.
More Country Readers send In Communi-
cations in Regard to Their Action.

Having had the opportunity of read
ing the article entitled Who Was
Right" as it will appear in this issue
desire to say few words on the other
side of the question. But right here
let me say that | heartily accord with
your correspondent when he speaks of
the slanderous remarks that have been
passed against the negative members
of the County Board on the question OF
the purchase of the Fisk property. We
think such remarks entirely uncalled
for and will do more harm than good,
widen the breach already existing be-
tween the county and city.
But to come to the question at issue,
Who Was Right" we emphatically
believe the city and Pleasant Prairie
members to be. Your Bristol CORES
pendent coming so late with bis article
in defence of his Supervisor, certainly
does not throwa very good light on the
real question. When one comes to
consider the actions of the county
members of the County Board while in
session, we can't see how he can har-
monte their actions then with the
statements as brought to light in the
above mentioned article.
In the first place, did these negative
members of the Board know or think
they knew when they so voted, that
the appropriation would have been
unlawful. If that was brought out at
the session of the Board, we have
learned nothing of it. 1t is since the
session of the Board that we have
learned that side. The reason [ bring
this point to light is that hardly think
it was from this standpoint that the
county members acted as they did, but
from another one entirely.
It was this fact, we believe, that
brought out the storm of indignation
from the people of the city and looking
at it from that point of view we don't
blame them either for expressing that
indignation Just so far as it was right.
Answer please, Mr.. Correspondent from
Bristol, was it not a fact that it was
another influence entirely which
brought about the resembling action?
Here, we believe, is where the crit
icism and condemnation has been
heaped" on the country supervisors.
It was the spirit which was shown and
not because of free expression of their
views and convictions that the con-
domination came so heavily. We asked
one Bristol farmer what he thought
about it and the conversation was
about as follows:
| think the country members did just
right in not voting for the appropriation
before they had an expression of the
views of their constituents.
What do you think the views of the
majority of the taxpayers would be?
For myself. l would rather have
given the $2500 than not to have seen
the monument erected, and [ think
without a doubt, the majority are
with me.
Public opinion then, you think, was
strongly in it's favor. Do you not
suppose that your supervisor knew that
just as we'll as you?
Yes, do.
Well, what was the use then of sub
hitting it to vote. And the farmer
said he couldn't see any use.
Now, as to the legal side of the
question, we think there is chance for
fair discussion, if the law is as stated in
the previously mentioned article. But
as we stated before, we believe en-
phatically that the city and Pleasant
Prairie supervisors are right. We, in
our Interpretation of what is said to be
the law on the question, think the
spirit, intent and purpose of the law
was to affect the price of the mOnu-
ments and buildings themselves and
does not mention anything regarding
the place of erection. Let me ask one
question: Would the County Board
have the right and power to use prop
erty of the cOunty's already in its pos
session, for the purpose of erecting a
monument thereon that had been al
ready purchased by the County Board
on vote of the people. We think they
would. Well, if they ouldappropriate
real estate which they already owned
for that purpose. why haven't they the
power of buying real estate and after
wards turning it over for that purpose.
The County Board certainly can buy
real estate lawfully for the cOunty's
use. If this be true, then they could
buy the real estate in question, no
matter for what it is used as long as it
is for the public's, use.
We believe that if piece of prop
erty were purchased on which was
erected house, that house would be
considered as belonging to that prop
erty. But if we purchased a house,
which was on certain valuable lot,
and nothing was said concerning the