Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1910-09-01
Marshall County Fair, Sept. IL, Is, Is

know that that committee consulted
the representatives at the convention
from the respective precincts con,
cerning the names of delegates to
the state convention from those pre-.
cincts.
The charge that I controlled or un-
duly influenced the opinions or the
conduct of any one of the list of del
egates to the county convention, as
printed in your issue of June 23rd, is
ridiculous, and in support of my con-
tention in that regard, refer any In
quiring person to any one OF the dele
gates whose names are therein men
toned. J.
The other charge contained in your
paper in part reads as follows con-
cerning myself: The man who was
paid by the county to spend the win
ter at the State Capitol that he might
have enacted such legislation that
would enable us to procure a more
systematic system of drainage, but
who instead spent his time framing
up bill that granted county artor:
neys certain emoluments from State
and Judicial Ditch proceedings. which
enabled the county attorneys Office
Of Marshall county to clean up over
$4,000 the past year.
There are several things wrong
with that statement. The first is,
that the county did not send me to
the State Capitol during the session
OF the legislature for the year 1909,
or at any other time, and that the
county did not pay me one dollar or
any otner sum for expenses or fees
during the time I was at the State
Capitol during the session of the leg
islature referred to.
The principal reason for my at
tendance at the term of the legisla-
ture was that under the existing laws
a ditch system of the extent, for in
stance of the judicial system in the
eastern end of this county, known as
Judicial Ditch No. II, could, not be
undertaken, the principal reason be-
ing that under the law existing prior
to the legislative session of 1909, the
law required III both the preliminary
and final hearing on ditch matters.
service of the notice of hearing per-
sonally upon each land owner, the
same as is required in the case of the
service of summons in district court.
The land owners in these ditch pro-
ceedings are scattered over the whole
continent, and in the case Of Judicial
Ditch No. s, which is not far from
Stephen, and is a small ditch, about
8 months time Of our office and ap-
proximately the sum Of $3.50 in money
for service fees was necessary
to be spent to secure the per-
sonal service of these notices
upon the land owners in the various
parts of the U. S. They were sent
to practically every state in the I'm
ion and even then there were some of
the owners upon whom service could
not be personally made. Judge
Crindeland declined to entertain
other petitions under that law,
for the reason that it was impos
sible to get service, and the object of
my sojourn in st. Paul at the last
Legislative session, was to secure the
passage of an amendment to that
ditch law, providing that in place OF
such personal service as above
stated, service might be made
by mailing notices to nom
residents whose addresses were
|. known, and by publishing for weeks
in a newspaper, and by posting the
notices in three places in the town
affected.
I was successful in securing the
passage of that amendment, and the
result is, that in place of spending
the sum Of $3.50 in getting service for
ditch hearing, the cost, in similar
sized ditch, does not exceed the sum
Of $50.
Concerning the charge, that I Sc
cured the passage of any bill grant
ing county attorneys any pay or emol-
uments from ditch proceedings, will
say that you are in error. Section
As, chapter 44s, General Laws of 1907,
being the law In force prior to the
time that I spent the winter in st.
Paul, is as follows: toThe county au-
ditor and the clerk Of the district
court, county attorney, register, sher
lit and county commissioners, shall re-
ceive reasonable compensation for
their service under this act, and
such compensation shall be in addi-