Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1909-10-21

j A.
To F. A. Sher wood. ESQ.,:
1t has always been, in the interest
Of fair-play, custom of the Rec
ord editor. where he has been at
tackled in newspaper article and
desires to reply, to reprint the an
tagonistic article. In this way the
reader has both sides Of the subject
before him, and can form a much
fairer conclusion as to the equities
of the case. will recount. Mr.. Sher-
wood the happenings connected
with this unlawful bridge-building
matter. You insist that politics is
at the bottom Of it. will call your
attention to certain things which
may weaken your belief in this d.
rection.
Just previous to the primary cleo
ton last year | was in southwestern
Emmons. Practically everybody
down there was up in arms against
the commissioners and particular
ly against their own commissioner.
yourself because, as they alleged,
they had let contract for building
two bridges across Cattail creek
no petition for such bridges having
been received by the commissioners,
an action that must precede the locs-
ton of bridge by the county
board.
The people Of the Winona country
also claimed that there was no need
of the two bridges; that, if they
were built, it would require still a
third to fill the bill; and that the
trouble could be avoided by the
board buying or condemning and
buying if the owner would not vol
unfairly sell-a strip Of land along
the creek.
Now. mind you. Mr.. Sherwood,
up to this time. although the pri-
mary campaign had taken place,
there had been no trouble between
the commissioners and the Record.
And even the boss of the courthouse
had expressed frequently in public
his appreciation of the manner in
which he had been treated by my
self, personally and in the paper,
during the campaign between US.
Returning to Linton and investigat-
ing little. ! found that not only
was there no necessity for building
the bridges as located. but that NOT
A SINGLE LINE IN THE WAY
OF INVITING BIDS HAD BEEN
PUBLISHED. AND THAT THE
ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS IN
VIOLATION OF THE LAW THE
COMMISSIONERS HAD SWORN
TO OBEY.
Then an article appeared in the
Record giving the facts in the case
and quoting the law. The article
was extremely conservative. This
was before the thousand dollar
deal, and all the Record asked was
that the present transaction should
not establish precedent for doing
the county's business. As a sample
of the tone of the article / append
paragraph, as follows:
The Record does not believe for
a minute that the board members
are governed by corrupt motives in
the least. All the commissioners but
the one in whose district bridge is
to be located must be governed
largely by information and advice
received from others. But it must
be apparent to the gentlemen com.
posing the board that such proceed.
lngs as this will not answer. Here
we have S4.6l2.OO to be expended
without shadow of law for so do
ing. True. the members Of the pres.
ent board may say that they are do.
ing it for the best. But, is it not =
very dangerous precedent to estab.
llsh? Although the present board be
honest, it might happen that dis
honest majority would some day 81,
on the board, and this maiorit,
could point to this action as a prece
dent for despoiling the county,"
Nothing very bitter about this
Mr.. Sherwood. Only a demand thu,
the law be complied with in doin,
the county's business. 1t was onl,
such position as any independen
editor would feel it his duty to tax,
if he hoped to retain in the least TIN
reputation of publishing a newspa
per that gives the news.