Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1908-03-12
POOR FARMS
County Commissioners Getting In
formation on Subject. Road
and Bridge Matters.
Proceedings Of the County Com.
misslonsrs Meeting In Fargo
Last Week.

The Stutsman County Commission
ers, who attended the convention Of
commissioners at Fargo have re-
turned and feel that the trip was a
beneficial cne Many matters of gen.
eral interest and Importance for the
county we're taken up, and while it
was the first meeting and many dele
gates were mot prepared to express
opinions on important questions, still
the value of the meeting was found
to ba great. The general conclu-
sion in regard to change in the
matter of assessments of personal and
real property was that change
should be made from the present
method but this can not be done un-
til the legislature enacts laws to con-
form with such system. Commission
er Past through a question box Sc
cured considerable information re-
garding poor farms as they are run
in several counties of the state. The
com omhlissioners did NOT go to Grand
Forks county to look up the poor
farm system.there. If rightly located
and managed the poor farm was thot
to be good way to care for the coun-
ty's dependents.
1t was stated poor farms, were run
ming in Richland, Ramsey, Grand
Forks and other counties. In Rich
land, county the most successful
operation of the plan seems to exist
and it was stated in response to
questions from Mr.. Past of the
Stutsman county board, that the
cost of maintaining each person on
the Richland.county farm including
every charge was s7.43 per month. A
good deal was invested in land and
buildings probably s2o, 900 and a Sec
tion of land was owned and located
near the county seat. Much ~elief
was given for this sum in other
ways.
In Ramsey county there was
poor farm of $40 acres. The land was
rented only and the proceeds of the
rentals turned over to the county
poor fund. There are no buildings on
the land and it is the purpose Of the
county later to add suitable build
ings, and possibly to include hospi-
tai.
It was stated hat the poor farm
at Grand Forks county was not
success the.wa 1t is managed as .the
farm is badly located for economical
management and the cost.per capita
was greater than it should be and
that inmates could be boarded at
hotels for less. The general senti-
nent was that if poor farm is
rightly located and managed on
sound business basis, it is the cheap
est and most desira ole way Of caring
for the county's dependents and to
give the necessary care and respect
full treatment that is their due.
The matter of roads and the re-:
sponsibility for the construction CT
county roads was discussed by the
commissioners. The best system for
the people of the county vas declared
to be the construction of roads under
the direction and by the organized
townships to suit their own needs.
The plan of the county building
roads as is done here Is not deeu.ed
to be most economical. There is large
sum investigating rading machinery
and the cost is too expensive for the
results. There is waste of time al
so in the present method. The
countys assistance in the construc-
tion Of bridges is required however
as the small townships should not
be asked to build expensive bridges
for the use Of others.
Resolutions were passed as. follows:
Whereas, the subject Of proper as
sessing and equallzing Of assessments
is deemed by this organization to be
the most pressing need, therefore, be
1t: .5.3 3s
Resolved, that our present 6 neral
system is::snf nf1cient, further, that the
principal Of assessment Of property
at true and full value as now con-;
I tained In our statutes. IS correct; !;