The Delta independent., 1906-03-09
Mr.. MARTIN REPLIES.

Road Overseer In h0tchklss Dist.
rict Explains Apparent 'Craft." "
The North Fork Times under date of
February 10th published an article un-
der scare heads concerning diverse
matters relating to county affairs and
in which an accusation. of graft" by
Brunie Martin, road overseer in the
North Fork district, was given much
prominence. Several of the county
papers Immediately jumped at conclu-
sions and with sort Of ''pat-on-the
back" attitude, made comments more
or less in accord and with some query.
The Laborer intimated, or rather pro-
claimed, that the official organ"
meaning the Independent, could "answer
these charges without any doubt and do
it without much trouble. Purposely
the Independent said nothing. It hap
pened to be aware that the North Fork
Times would. without much doubt,
make sort of excuse for its work and
in that regard the following article,
copied from their issue of this week,
has proven the Independent not far
from wrong. Mr.. Martin did wrong in
one act. He should not consider the
work done by the man he hired while
away as his own. He should have re-
quired this man to have placed on file
with the county a bill of labor signed
and sworn to by the worker himself.
Yet it will be noticed and is shown 9TH
erwise than by this statement, that the
county of Delta actually received every
days labor that was paid for and while
the technical point is none the less bet
tered, there has been no graft" or
stealing even though the North Fork
Times would have had its readers 20
believe. The article below i In the
nature Of letter to the editor Of the
Times and follows As printed In that
sheet:
Editor The Times.
Dear Sir: =
noticed BY your issue q ~ l6th
that there are many statements in IL
article concerning road overseers, etc.
which demands from me more attention
than would ordinarily be given. The
article has been copied and commented
upon by other newspapers throughout
the county in way which certainly
does not show fairness or honest motives.
In your article you say that worked
3O614 days. My time was actually 297
days but during the month Of March ]
had an extra team hired and their total
days at the regular rate made the extra
nine and quarter days. Having to pay
the owner of the team for their work
myself l naturally put in their time as
my own. This was done with the full
knowledge of all psrties concerned and
cannot be put up as charge of graft
ing" against myself.
Your comparison of my time and the
time Of the overseers in the Paonia and
Crawford districts is distinctly unfair
as lam the overseer for all the county
east of the state bridge, Payne siding
and Cow Creek north of Hanson's place.
The overseers at Paonia and Crawford
are working under my direction and re-
ceive in wages three dollars and fifty
cents per day. Many of my days are
put in overseeing and assisting in their
work. l am responsible for them and
naturally wish to see occasionally that
the work is done right.
The Paonia district under my deputy
has wage bill nearly double the Hotch-
kiss district. Yet the records show
that my wage bill is much larger than
the bill Of the Paonia overseer. As any
one else would do l put in all possible
time needed myself and do not hire
workmen except when absolutely neces-
sary. The Paonia man has every month
several men working. The total amount
~ s.,ooo. s,,o;d &, III. .I;.%.;,A &.