Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1905-08-25
ined fghtpn official abuses of power
and one of the savings he has effected
there hy cnmnetitinn is related nc fol.

there by competition is related as fol-
low:
Following Mayor Weaver's action in
several months earlier
than has been customary for bids for
electric street lighting with the pur-
purpose of giving companies other
than the Philadelphia Electric COM
pany, which has had the contract for
several years, an opportunity to COM
pete, the Philadelphia company, in its
bid for the 1905 contract opened TO-
day, reduced its rates for the coming
year by cents night each on all va
rieties of lamps. There was no other
bidder. tits estimated that this will
effect saving to the city of s118,000
for the year.
Fear alone of competition certainly
effected saving there and competi-
tion saves everywhere--even in Crescc.
1t may be personal matter, hut it
puzzles us to know why the council
should consider bids for printing and
not need them for plumbing; and
when the printing is not given to the
lowest bidder, we can't help asking
"Why is it?"
With reference to the drawing of
pay from both city and county for the
same work, Mr.. Evans says it is a
"pretty serious charge and one in
which the public is deeply interested"
and that it is proper to make "thor-
ough and lengthy explanation" How
opinions do differl One of our Justly
Conspicuous Worthless was discussing
the "Why Is 1t" articles IN the lobby
of the post Office Sunday morning,
and loudly condemned them, saying
"the PLAIN DEALER don't amount to
anything, anyway, and no one pays
attention to what it says" and that
"the council did Just right in not an
swering the articles" He also char
acterized the PLAIN DEALERS expo
sition of council methods as Glow
lived trick, to attack men who had
done so much for the town" Evil
IDENTIFY bosom friends do not agree on
the tone of the moral and business
standard which should govern an Of
fetal.
Mr.. Evans, in his explanation Of
the "salary grab" feature, evidently
seeks to lay the blame on
others. Let us examine his argument
a little closely. he first quotes Sec.
500 of the Code, in which the state.
ment of liability for payment is not
explicit, and asks "Would you have
taken the 81 per meeting for this
work." Yes, from one source; but
does this section in any way hint that
both city and county should pay fol
the same work?
Mr.. Pierce's letter given above, OF
date April 25th, says plainly enough
that the pay of the council as board
of equalization was '''to be paid from
the county treasury" and nowhere In
the amended Sec. $3.50 mentioned ir
Pierce's letter of this date, can We
find where it even hints at the city
and county both paying for this work
but Mr.. Evans says the council "took
1T" ("took it" is good) that the
amendment entitled them to an extra
81. In connection with this matter
to show how plainly the law reads ii
the matter, we wish to quote from
some Of Mr.. Evans own authority
the letter from Pierce Of Aug. 10th ir
which he says 1.-THE original provis
ions of the law [Sec, 6e9l provided fol
paying the meetings of the city coun
Gil, the question was raised that courp
cilzae'a receive no pay as members Of tn
board of 1evieU y \ and the law wa.
then changed Thy amendment to Sec
1851 providing for pay n but tina
the same should be paid By the county.
1t doesn't take lawyer-only mar
with ordinary intelligence and cap.
able of reading the English language
Ito see that nowhere does the Law
even hint at such a preposterous idea
as double pay for council or board o.
review work; and David knewit, else
why did he, after filing his bill with
the auditor and swearing that no par
OF 1T had ever been paid, begin con
sulting attorneys and enter into Sc
much correspondence to determine
his legal rights in the matter. The
symptoms indicate that his mora
rights were severely questioned by
his conscience, Take notice also, thai
while Mr.. Evans claims the glory Of
Satisfactorily Investigating" the
double pay question before it was
touched upon by this paper, that the
date OF the satisfactory" investiga
tion follows the first of the PLAN
DEALER articles which evidently
sent an apprehenslve chill down the
official yertebrae of the doubly paid
aldermen,
i The admission by Mr.. Evans that
double pay is being paid back into
the city treasury is sufficient to en-,
dorse the PLAIN DEALERS position
in the matter; and while according to
the dates of the correspondence be.
tween Mr.. Evans and Mr.. Pierce the
council were made aware of the facts
before our article Of Aug. 18th, it is
especially noticeable that the repay.
ment Of it to the city did not begin
until after the publication of the art.
Gle, and according to Mr.. Evans is not
yet completed.
/ BY the way, have the chalrmen OF