Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1901-06-19
WHOA, MULE!


hoods. But last week 1t excelled itself.
There are number of outbreaks, but
the one most notorious is the column of
hog wash concerning the KiOwa bridge
case. 1t scores Commissioners Grouse
and Walker for cOnsentlng to cOmprO-
mise the suit, and in its anxiety to
prove to the public that Its editor is a
chumD in the first degree it says that
Commissioner Rankin opposed 1t. We
need only challenge the attention of
Mr.. Rankin did not oppose it, and if
necessary, 1t can be easily proved that
when the matter was first presented
Mr.. Rankin agreed with the other CON-
missioners to compromise it. so that
the Cresset's abuse of Messrs. Grouse
and Walker is terrible slap on Rank.
in. We don't know how Mr.. Rankin
feels about 1t, but most anybody else
in his place would do little muscular
work in the Cresset Office at the very
earliest opportunity.
There is no reason for the Cresset's
frorhing at the mouth. The taxpayers
and every sane citizen in the county
endorse the compromise because it was
good business sense. The county, had
the hot end of bad game and the COM
promise lets it out remarkably well.
While we are at tive might as well re.
iterate the facts in this case. When the
new river bridge was built at Klowa
controversy arose between Trustee
Cot and Commissioner Nay, both of
that town, as 20 whether the old
bridge belonged to the county or
to the township. Mr.. Nay said it
was county property and Mr.. Golf said
it was township property. Out of
courtesy to Mr.. Nay, the other two
commissioners, Messrs. Rankin and
Walker, agreed to test the matter in
court and when it came to trial 1t was
agreed that jury should be waived
and the matter submitted on an agreed
statement of facts. Mr.. Nay for the
county, and Mr.. Golf for the township,
agreed that two thirds of the material
belonged to the township, and One-third
to the county-the county having ex-
pended money in repairing and the
bridge having originally been built by
the township. On this statement of
facts Judge Gillett held for the county
although he stated that there was
close question involved and he advised
the township to appeal the case. 1t
must be remembered that at this time
Mr.. Nay was candidate for re-elec-
ton on the republican ticket, Judge
Gillett was republican, and an ad,
verse decision at that time would have
meant certain defeat for Mr.. Nay. The
case was appealed and the lumber was
piled up, part of it perishing and part
OF it being carried away piece by piece.
There were no prospects that the case
would be reached for several years and
by the time it would have been decided
the lumber would have been worthless.
In the end the county would have lost.
We have heard every lawyer In the
county express himself and all except
those employed by the county have said
that the township had the better of it.
The statement made by the Cresset
that the townships attorney had vital
error in his papers which would have
compelled the supreme court to dismiss
it, is another falsehood. That part of
it was simply for the purpose Of injur.
log the Kiowa attorney because he is
not a republican. The attorney for
the township was not eager for a COM
promise. He preferred to have the SUI
preme court decide it. There was no
error of any kind in any of his papers.
So far as the Cresset connects one
OF the publishers of this paper with the
matter, in which we are quoted as say.
ing 1t was an outrage, we have only to
say that we never made any such state
ment, and the Cresset lies every time
ltquotes US as having madeit. Neither
are we sponsor for Commissioner Walk.
er, and we at no time stated that we
could say nothing if he should make
mistake. We would feel as free to
criticise him as any other person, and
we have before stated that he erred
when he first consented to the bridge
suit. He recognized this as soon as
Mr.. Nay admitted that two. thirds
of the bridge belonged to the township
and from that time on he favored Drop
ping 1t. When he first favored ID, he
relied on Mr.. Nays judgment, but
when he learned the facts he was free
to acknowledge his mistake and do his
duty to the taxpayers. We admire a
man who will do this. All men make
mistakes, but 1t requires men of integ
rity to acknowledge an error and get on
the right side as soon as they are con-
WINGED that they are wrong. And in
this connection we give Mr.. Rankin
credit and will continue 70 do so unless
the politicians get hold OF him again
and compel him to swallow his words.
The compromise was good, sound
business. 1t will save the county a
great amount of money. 1t will also
save the township some. The suit was
one of the numerous blunders made by
the old board, and 1t was one of the
things that turned Geo. Nays picture
to the wall. The taxpayers of Barber
county are not fond of putting up cash
to lawyers for spouting over q few old
rotten pieces OF timber. and neither do