The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1906-06-07
DECATUR STILL FIGHTS
havelFiIed q Long List of Objections
to the RemonstrdnCe Before the
Board of Supervisors.

ldVtIl Ilcu Lung lISl vi UDJcCttOHS
to the RemonstranCe Before the
Board of Supervisors.
Notwithstanding the Decatur City
court house petition has been over
whelmingly defeated by the Leon re-
monstrance, the Decatur City agitators
are going to fight the matter to the las t
ditch. On Monday their attorney, Hugh
M. Fry, of Creston, was here and filed a
long list of objections to the remon-
STRANGE, covering twenty-six counts,
and raising every objection which the
attorney could possibly think of, but the
attorneys for Leon after examining the
objections feel confident there is moth
ing to any of them, and when the hear
ing is held by the board they will de-
eide that the petition is lost by a big
majority. The board had set Wednes-
day morning at o'clock as the time for
passing upon the petition and remon-
STRANGE, but a telegram was received
that morning from Mr.. Fry, saying he
missed the train at Creston and could
not reach Leon before noon, so the hear
ing was continued until o'clock this
Wednesday, afternoon and is in pro-
gress at the time The Reporter went to
press. 1t is impossible to tell how long
it will take for the hearing, but 1T may
occupy several days.
The following is copy of the Decatur
City objections:
remonstrance or purported remon-
STRANGE, and for the following reasons,
to-wit:
hof no cfr SC.
insufficient in form and is not in the
form as directed by statue of the state
OF Iowa in such case made and pro-
vided; that the same is of no force and
effect and can not be considered as
against the prayers of the petitioners.
I'd. That the said remonstrance was
circulated and signed prior to the time
of the filing of the petition for such re-
location and at the time of the signing
of said remonstrance the said petition
was not completed and had no legal
force or effect as against which
remonstrance could be signed, circu-
lated or obtained.
3rd. That the said remonstrance
does not show when the same was
signed or when circulated and does not
contain the place of residence of those
signing the same and is not in the form
required by statute.
4th. That the said remonstrance con-
tains erasures, alterations, interlinea-
tions and additions made since the
signing thereof and not with the knowl-
edge or consent or in the presence of
those purporting to have signed the
same.
9th. That the said remonstrance is
not continuous, similar, uniform and
connected paper or remonstrance, but
is worded differently and has and con-
tains different meanings in words and
effect and is not a complete remon-
STRANGE in and of itself, but consists
of different papers with no connection
in meaning between the same.
9th. That parts of said remonstrance
are not properly verified as by law re-
quired and not verified by the person
or persons circulating the same and in
whose presence the same was signed
and is not, in that regard, sufficient
under the statute.
7th. That the said purported remon-
STRANGE is not a similar and continuous
instrument, but consists of different
workings and different instruments not
of the same purport, meaning or re-
quirement.
Sth. That the said remonstrance, as
heretofore stated, was circulated prior
to the time of the signing and the filing
OF said petition, and does not and could
not refer or be in response to the mat
ters and things contained in said
petition or against the prayer thereof.
9th. That parts of said purported
remonstrance was signed without any
heading or statement thereto attached
showing what the instrument signed
was, and without showing whether the
instrument being signed was a remon-
STRANGE or other paper and that head
ings were afterwards pasted thereon
and made part thereof.
10th. That after the signing of said
remonstrance the heading thereof was
changed and the instrument as present.
ed to the board of supervisors is not the
one that was signed with knowledge of
the effect of the instrument.
11th. That after the signing of the
said remonstrance another and a differ
ent heading was pasted thereon and
that the said purported remonstrance
as now filed with the county auditor is
not continuous, similar and connected
instrument, containing the same decla-
ration and asking the board for the
same proposition or remedy.
18th. That the said purported re-
monstrance is not an instrument signed
by legal voters with like qualifications
and in all respects as required by the
statute in such case made and provided.
18th. That the said remonstrance
has names signed thereto of men who
are not residents or legal voters of
said county.
14th. That the said remonstrance
was signed by men who are not voters
or residents of said county.
18th. That the said remonstrance is
signed by minors.
10th. That the said remonstrance
was signed by men under and through
misstatements as to what the instru-
ment was and Misrepresentation as to
the effect thereof.
18th. That the said remonstrance
contains the names and is purported to