Northern Wisconsin advertiser. [volume] (Wabeno, Wis.) 1898-1925, 1908-01-30
TAXPAYER" TALKS.
Vigorously Objects to Mode Of Pay
ment for New Court House.
(Crandon Republican,

In the last issue of your paper
is contained two resolutions of
the county board in regard to
/ the construction of a new court
house, and you state therein for
| the reader to read the two reSO-
lutions and draw his own con-
clusions. The resolutions are
designated in your paper as res
olution No l and resolution No.
2; resolution No. providing
| for the construction of new
court house, sheriff's residence
and jail at an approximate cost
of S75, 600 to be paid for In fifteen
annual installments of S5, 900
each with interest, the first in
staIlment to be paid on January
| /. 1909 and one installment to be
paid every year thereafter until
the whole debt is discharged.
Resolution No. 2 providing for
the payment Of not one cent OF
the principal until after tie n
years have elapsed, and at that
late date to begin paying the
principal. OF course, resolution
No 2 provides for a new court
house at an approximate cost OF
i but $40, 900, but how about the
/ interest? Are we TO lose sight
of the fact that we must pay in
cold cash the sum Of S22, 800 IN
/ interest before we pay one cent
i Of the principal under resolution
j No. g.. Again under the terms
of the same resolution are we TO
| forget the important fact that at
the end of ten years the timber
will be practically all cleaned up
and taken away and the whole
i burden of the cost will fall on
The poor settler, who has come
in here to make himself home,
at which time the big mill owner
will have manufactured all lis
! timber and have gone TO newer
i fields where he can again be in
i strumental In passing another
resolution No. g, by intimidat-
and pulling The wool over the
eyes of some other weakling
whom he may find on some other
county board?
Mr.. Editor, are you aware OF
the fact that our $4,000 court
house under the terms Of reso-
luton No 2 will actually cost
more money than the 500, 900
Icourt house under the terms Of
resolution No. [? Ii you are not,
4 then please take out your pencil
and figure. Besides this fact,
who pays for the new court
! house under the terms of resolu-
ton No. 1? Is it not every tax
payer, including the mill owner
and capitalist for the next fifteen
years! Can that fact be denied!
Then if the above facts are tree,
the question naturally arises.
Why did the County Board
rescind resolution No. l a nd
adopt resolution No. 2? lis it
simply because the mill owners
and capitalists wanted the change
made SO they would not have TO
pay for the court house and to
| give them ten years. notice to
have their timber cut and get
out? Or is it possible that some
of our members of that august
body did not have brains enough
TO see the point and were there
for duped? Do some of our coun-
ty board members belong 10 tie
"pinnifore, petticoat and panta-
| lie" class? That can scarcely be
true, because it hardly can be
q conceded that there is a ten year
old boy IN our town who would
not know better. Have some of
our members become SO old and
4 doty that they can be duped by
such coarse work? Have they
lost their reason or did they ever
have any brains to lose? Are
the taxpayers Of this county go
ling to submit to sush work by
weakhng members of the county
boardg