Custer County Republican. (Broken Bow, Neb.) 1882-1921, 1902-08-28

allowed before and since the rejection OF |
the one now in question.
The reader will note that in |
July the Beacon asserts that the |
sheriff claims to have made a !
contract to collect on the distress !
warrants, charging only half the |
fee the law provides Wis ~ cents |
a mile for each mile actually and
necessarily Travelled. 1t will be
remembered in this connection
that the shcrilf's bill in July is
the one in controversy and the
one the board refused to pay.
The board allcdging, "the charge
as milagc is excessive and H.
cgal.' The distress warrants
were placed in the sheriffs hands
for collection as early as last
December ON which the Beacon
claims, "the sheriff had perform
ed his duty and his offer in July
to do the work in July could not
in any sense be construed as a
contract between him and the
board.
But we are of the opinion that
the Beacon is off in its dates, and
that the offer of the sheriff was
made prior to July.
But our contention is that the
sherilf's bill is illegal for the
reason that ne charged mileage
not only in excess of the 2 =, cents
Il mile but in excess of 5 cents
mile for each mile actually and
necessary travelled. The board
very wisely rejected claims for
mileage for the simple reason
that it represented more miles
travelled than would have been
possible for the sheriff and his
deputy to have Travelled in a year
at so inlet each a day, six days a
week. For instance, his claim
on mileage alone for distress
warrants not collected were:
March. .............S2 $500 IS
t'llN' .'' '.''. vi w
Total .............SS 71 Is
Had he only charged ~ cents
per mile he would have travelled
thirty four thousand, eight hun
dred fifty four miles, which at 50
miles a day would have taken
607 days, more than two years Of
working days. Does the honest
and unpredjuced reader believe
for minute that he travelled
that number of miles from Janu-
airy Is, 1902, to June 1902, only
about five mouths and stopped on
the route and tried to collect each
of the distress warrants against
the party whom he went to see?
Does the taxpayer want the
board to allow any such amount
to their reform sheriff or any
sheriff for travelling expenses?
The plea that the sheriff may
have to visit some of those for
whom he has distress warrants
three or four times and go in a
zig gag direction from one to the
other does not make it any more
plaruSible that he travelled 1854
miles in five months
on unColleCted warrants when, in
the same space of time he travel
ed s, 10 miles toSeCurc the money
he collected, figuring at ? 1a cents
a mile for which he collected of
those he distressed, S207.75.
This would make a grand total
of -, 064 miles in $50 days, or
SlO79.lO for travelling expenses
alone in five months, for which
he does not account to the county
besides drawing a salary of $4,000
a year.
We think the Beacon concludes
wisely when it said that:
when man gets drunk either on
bad whiskey or corrupt partisanism, he
never can see anything right, and the
one case of intoNiCation is as bad as the
other and fully as demoralizing.
We are inclined to think the
public will eXClmm in tones that
can not be mistaken when they
reach the ballot box the 4th of
next November that "Thou art
the man" and the party that en-
dorSeS that kind of reform will be
showed so deep that the trumpet
of Gabriel will not resurrect it on
the day of Judgement.
One redeeming quality in the
BcaconS article is the acknowledge
cmcnt that the REPUBLICAN was
correct when we stated that the
sheriff did not account to the
county for the fees he collects
ON mileage but retained them for
eXpenccs and in the following
language says:
"Thc statement of the Beacon that the
| ,u,ury IN controversy \\pulI 90 hlrk tp