The Ward County independent. [volume] (Minot, Ward County, N.D.) 1902-1965, 1906-02-22

Now to take up the charges on winch
the commissioners were finally found
guilty. These resolve themselves sub
stantially down to three, overcha"ge of
fees, the Minneapolis trip, and the
famous Optic bill. Let US look for q
moment at each.
These men, occupying important and
prominent positions, are only paid "a
per day for their work, and have to pay
their own expenses except for mileage.
out Of that. The mileage will easily pay
for railroad travel, but by no means for
livery. They are paid much too little.
This is not a good reason why they
should try to 'increasesit by illegal
charges but it is good reason why the
people of this county should be very
lenient indeed with them if, acting in
the customary way and supposing they
are acting within the law, they put in
as many days for their work as they
think is reasonably allowable. A charge
of one day for going to and returning
from meetings, whether or not legal, IS
not an unfair charge. All these com
missioners lived outside towns, and had
to spend more or less time in getting to
the railroad station, besides the time on
the train. Those Of US who are we'll ac-
quainted with the 500 trains will readily
agree that an all night trip on them is
not light undertaking. We have not
heard the fact disputed that commits
sioners often worked long while over
time when viewing grades and the like.
Is this county so parslmonious that 1t
grudges them compensation for this
extra work? The Independent could
not get its printers to do the same thing
without extra pay.
The Minneapolis trip stands on much
the same footing. Very likely the
charges made for that trip are not with
in the letter of the law. But vastly
more than this amount was saved to the
county by this trip This talk about
doing the business just as we'll by letter
is pure nonsense. If you want to find
oct the freight rates between two sta
tons, you can do it just as we'll by writ
ing as by going to Minneapolis, to talk
it over, but it, you want to get concessions
from railroad for an important public
work you can never accomplish it with
out personal interview. Everybody
who has had experience with corpora
tons know this. By taking this trip
the ousted commissioners saved Sl5OO.OO
in freight bills to Ward county, and now
we give them no credit for what they
have accomplished and removed them
from Office for charging reasonable pay
for the time spent in benetitting us.
They had passes for the return trip, and
charged mileage. This was improper,
and cannot be defended. But the i'm
proper and indefensible overcharge is
swallowed up in the good results oh
tanned, and the total charges, including
this improper one, are certainly reason
able for the work and the results.
The great bone of contention in the
commissioner case was the famous Optic
bill. Here there is a square conflict of
testimony, and if the testimony against
the commissioners is TO be believed and
their own testimony disbelieved, there
IS no question but that they ought to
have been removed. But let us take
up this testimony somewhat in detail.
1t came from MIR. Palmer, former editor
OF the Optic, who swore to Carols get
ting HIM to pad the bills. So far as
know Mr.. Palmer has always borne
good reputation, and on general prin-
ciples we would not doubt his word.
But in this case he was in a position
where he either bad to state as he did
or take the blame. himself. Further
more, even taking, his statements as
they stand, he is shown to have played
part not wholly creditable in the mat
ter, and this would be a fair ground for
doubling his testimony. 1t would tend
to impeach him. Mckeever's statement
cannot be regarded as of any special
value. He testified that he was ''jol,ied''
into putting his 20. K on the bill by
Richardson and Carol, but the reasons
give him are not necessarily improper
ones. namely that the paper was in a
hurry for the money. Furthermore, his
testimony is suspicious in one particu-
lar. that he says he was gwen beer dur
ing this conversation. which occurred
just outside the auditors door. Is thai
probable place for a Jolly" founded
on beer drinking: Jones, OF the Optic
was present during part of the Carol
Palmer conversation. and fails to corro
borate Palmer. Does this not make a
conflict of testimony square enough
coupled with the denials of the accused
commissioners, to raise a very substan-
tial doubt OF the prosecutions case
And should men who have in many WAYS