The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1903-04-02

Bulletin cannot find scratch of this |
pen on the minute books of the board
showing any action looking toward the
end. 1t Is true perhaps that the board
talked of the matter informally, but
their efforts were not directed toward
fastening the repayment, but if posi-
BILE, as the Bulletin suggests, to acoid
payn,ent and to allow Honest Hank to
retain the money.
This is the record as made by the
board OF supervisors and the Sheriff OF
Crawford county. The Bulletin, if it
has any desire to be honest. will be
forced to admit every statement made
above.
Abuse of thes Review or its editor;
the assertion that some other counties
also commit illegal acts; the insinua-
tion that former boards we're as inca
pable as the present one, is no excuse,
defense, or palliation.
1t is also ludicrous to attempt to
make the one lone republican on the
board in January 1902, the scapegoat
of the half dozen other members i'm
plicated. Mr.. John G. Smith, republi-
can, was member OF the board when
the initial blunder was made, he had
been member of the board less than
two weeks 1t was blunder and Me-
Smith was perhaps equally to blame
with others in this matter, but he GER
tainly was not so blameworthy as the
members who mad previously served on
the board. Early last spring, and
before the bln1ader had been discovered by
members of the board, Mr.. Smith re-
signed and Mr.. Dugan was appointed
in his stead. We have never blamed
the board so greatly for making the
initial blunder, as we have blamed them
for persisting in their blunder after
they knew the payment was illegal.
OF this latter charge Mr.. Smith, of
whom the Bulletin now speaks so high
ly, but for whom it had not one good |
word when he was q candidate for su
pervisor: must in fairness be exoner
ated. Now as to the necessity for grant
ing relief to the poor under-paid sher.
itf.
The Sheriff is the best paid officer in
the county. 1t is estimated by these
having every opportunity to know that
his net income from the Office is not
less than $4,000 per annum. He receives
direct from the county a salary of
$lsOO,OO together with house rent, fuel,
light and water. He receives good
income from mileage in civil cases, and
last year he received whatever profit
there may be in furnishing prison fare
to buns and thieves at 81 20 per week.
Out of this he is oblig ed by law to pay
the salary of his first deputy, and our
thrifty sheriff combines the Office of
turnkey with that OF first deputy, who
not only tends the Jail but acts as court
bailiff and as deputy sheriff in the serv-
ing of papers etc. This deputy he pays
the magnificent salary of $25 per
month and his board. This latter in
formation came from source which
we consider reliable, if we are wrong,
if the amount is really $50 or $40 per
month, the Bulletin will please correct
US. From the foregoing it does not ap-
pear that there was any real need of !
coming to the relief of the distressed
Sheriff.
In closing let US say we have no per-
sonal enmity toward Sheriff Bell or any
member of the board. We criticise
them in their official capacity only. We
have taken great pains to state only
what we believe to be facts. We have
accused no man because of his politics.
We have simply stated the underni,
able facts, deeming it the duty of an
honest newspaper to keep the tax pay
ers informed, whether the facts are
pleasing or otherwise. Had the Re
view simply desired to make capital
out of the affair, why should it have
given the board four distinct opportun-
tiles TO make it right with the coun-
ty before it made the matter public?
Does such action look like hatred or
malice or partisanship? Ii these had
been the motives, would not the Review
have rushed into print fastening to
give the matter to the public before
the board and the Sheriff had any OPP
portunity to make it right? Had
the board done as was promised and
made it right at its session of Feb'y
3rd., would not the REVIEW have been
robbed of its political thunder"
Does it show malice that the REVIEW
was willing to forego this partisan adj
vantage? Does it show malice
that the REVIEW stated in it's very |