The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1902-12-12

slt Fourth: Taxpayers numerous direct
and indirect statements, eliminated from
queries and generalities and boiled down
seem$to be: That Commissioner Mcrin
says the county was robbed ona certain
bridge contract. and that the board has
given out some $4,000 worth Of con-
tracts without advertising for bids.
But, comparing Taxpayers different
statements, il seems a little doubtful and
ambiguous as to times and amounts. On
Nov. 9, Taxpayer wrote Morin's state
nent is that "the county was robbed Of
81 600 or thereabouts." On Dec. 8, Tax
payer again refers to Mr.. NORM as stat
ing that "the county had been robbed Of
some 81, ,SOO." Nov. 9th Taxpayer says
contracts have been given for $4,000, !"
for which private estimates gave $500 as
the proper figures, and on Dec. 9th Tax
payer continues, and refers to ''the let
ting of a contract at $2,sO0 above the
lowest bidder"
The similarity and dissimilarity Of the
figures quoted and the circumstances are
confusing to the reader. Do the above
refer to one. two, three or four transact
ions7 Was the county robbed first Of
81 600, and then Of 81, 800, and again of
81, 200 Thy private estimate] and lastly of
81, 800 lover The lowest bidder]? Either
Mr.. NORM must have Stated" twice, or
his figures don't agree, and Taxpayer
must have two transactions at least in
mind, because one was based on private
estimate, and one is on the basis Of an
actual bid. We think even Taxpayer
will admit that these statements are not
as specific and direct as they might be.
Fifth: Taxpayer says it does not re-
quire an acute person to see the connect
ION between the giving out of $780, 600 in
contracts and the acceptance of a bid of
81 800 and the rejection Of bid of $780,
BY the way. this seems to be fifth rob-
cry; this time it's $1,000 net-we didn't
notice it before.l Well, we arenot acute
but confess our inability to see any con-
nection between the two things. 1t
seems to us that Taxpayer has cause to
lament on two entirely separate grounds.
One, that there were no bids to accept
or reject, and the other that bids were
accepted and rejected. Both of these, if
true, are properly grounds of complaint
but we fail to see any connection.
Sixth: Taxpayer says ''the assessment
of the Pioneer Express outfit was equal
lied at $75. Another paper, whose plant
was valued at 81, 600, was equalized at
$125." The published proceedings of the
equalization board in July show that five
of the county papers were raised" from
$50 to 5000 each, and one paper "re-
duced" $50. The highest equal,zed as
sessment Of county paper was $500, the
lowest 5000. The record also reads "The
Pioneer Express assessment $4O0. No
change" As matter of fact, The Pio-
neer Express outfit" taken in its broad
meaning, pays yearly in taxes about 500
more than Taxpayer asserts is our as
SeSSed valuation.
Taxpayer and others will please note
that in the above remarks we have not
attempted, except incidentally, to defend
the county board. We defend Mr.. La
Doux, we defend ourselves, from .abso-
lutely false statements, and we compare
Taxpayers own statements in reference
to other matters with each other.
If, however, Mr.#tTaxpayer's state
ments have no better foundation than
his own ambiguous and inchoate assev-
erations and are as untrue as his charges
that Mr.. LaDoux left the country with
all his wealth, and that the Pioneer Ex-
press outfit was equalized at $75 then
his epistles are worthy Of no further at-
tention. %
The Pioneer Express believes the
county board to be composed Of human
beings and "mostly honest" as some
body remarks. They are quite as liable
to error as most humans are, and we
have differed with them in opinion many
times. They are the servants Of the peo-
pie and as such the people have the right
to criticize their acts, when it is right.
But we believe. before charges are
made Of robbery" and financial mis-
management, and insinuations Of bribery
made. that the accuser should specify
f,ersnns fines ar1n0,I,,tc and circuy,,cfa,,.