Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1905-02-01

News hereinbefore referred to, says:
1.-The Democrat article, it looks to
me, was published for double pur-
pose-to hurt the County Attorney
and to hurt my sons case with the
railroad, just simply because the
county attorney downed Bronson &
Carr and Durham, Norris & Stiles
in the Clark case, and Mr.. Norris,
being an attorney for the company
my son is trying to get his rights Of,
they having it in for Mr.. Cloud will
try to injure my sons case, just be-
cause County Attorney has the case"
The article in the Democrat was
not published for either of the pur-
poses above stated. Our attention
was called to the fact of these loans
and several other Irregularities of
the board, and we deemed it the
duty of the Democrat to call the
boards attention to them, and COM
menced doing SO with the article
in question. So far as Durham,
Norris & Stiles are concerned they
had no knowledge whatever of the
article or its intended publication
until they saw it after they received
their Democrats through the post
office.
AS to the articles prejudicing the
Cross case against the Illinois Gen.
trail, it certainly could not have that
effect, as the case is not pending in
this state. having been brought in
one of the courts, in Illinois, where
it is now pending.
Our sympathy is with Edgar M.
Gross, and we sincerely hope that
the facts upon the trial of his case
will entitle him, and that lie will re-
ceive, large remuneration for his in
juries. No amount Of money would
reimburse him for the injuries he
sustained while in the company's
employ. But much as we sympa-
thize with him the Democrat cannot
in justice to itself and the tax pay
ers of the county remain silent when
it learns that the tax payers money
has been and is being unlawfully
disposed of, as shown by the making
of the several loans to Mr.. Cross.
| In this connection perhaps it
would be we'll to refer briefly to
some other matters in which the
taxpayers are interested.
i The Phoenix Of last week con-
tanned quite a lengthy article
(resproduced on seventh page Of this
paper) under the caption Of, Amt
These Facts" The article was in
spired by malice, caused by the
failure of the board at its January
session to select the Phoenix as one
of the official papers of the county
But the reason for its publication
by the Phoenix is immaterial in SO far
as it states facts. We have inves-
tigated the correctness of the edi-
torial and find that the members Of
the board paid themselves for livery
hire from the county funds, from
June until January the following
sums:
Thomas Lindsay. $l66.3O
VIM. Robinson. .......... 2O3.OO
j. j. Kirkwood. l76.OO
| A total Of. .$545. 80
These expenditures are clearly il
), legal, not being authorized by
statute and the members should
speedily cover the sums SO received
by them into the county treasury
The Phoenix casts all the blame up
on the members Of the board for
this illegality. Is it sure that the
county attorney. the legal advisor
of the board, did not sanction it?
If he did not it was surely his duty
to known of the action of the board
and to call their attention to the
illegally of it.
In addition to his salary the Code
Sec. 303 Suppl provides; that the
County Attorney shall receive the
fees as now allowed to attorneys for
suits upon written instruments
where judgment is obtained, for all
fines collected and school fund
mortgages foreclosed, and his neces-
sary and actual expenses incurred
in attending upon his official duties
at place other than his residence ana
the county seat, which shall be
audited and paid by the board Of
supervisors. We find by referring
to the county attorneys bills for ex-
penses that he claimed and was al
lowed expenses at the:
4, April term 1904. .........$ 6l.l7
June term 1904. ........ 4OOs
| Nov. term 1904 .......... 79.42
Jany term 1905. ........... 1880
Total 5000 Al
And among the items Of said &C
counts we found charges for board
bills incurred while he was attend.
ing to his official duties at the eoup-
ty seat. Such charges were illegal
and Mr.. Cloud owes it to the tax
payers as well as himself, to repay
them to the county.
For the six years last past the
salary of the County Attorney of
this county has been 5000 per
annum. At the last election Mr..
Cloud was reelected. After his cleo
ton to wit: on November Is, 1904,
the board increased his salary to
$500, an increase of 5000, per
anum. Is this fair to the tax payersi
and ought not the board in justice
to themselves and the people Of the
county to explain why they made
this liberal gift to the County
Attorney.
The Democrat invites the mem