The state herald., 1912-11-01
False Representations.

False Representations.
The Enterprise and its legal adviser
are still attempting to mislead the vot-
ers ~ 10 the facts in regard to the re-
funding Of the old county bond debt.
Tho original bonds were $4,000. There
were ~, 900 81 the refunding bonds and
these gentlemen are pleased to refer to
the 81, 800 Of the refunding bonds ever
and above the amount Of Of the original
$2s, 900 as ''the unwarranted and waste
full issue Of Sl4, ,8O0," while, at the same
time, they each know from actual
knowledge Of the facts that this addi'
tional issue of 4,s00 was caused by
the fact that no interest had been pair
by the county on the $685. 900 bonds for
9 years and the interest had been pilinR
up at the race Of 81, 240 per year and in
addition to this the railroad company
had not paid any bond interest tax fol
IS years and owed the county at that
time $l1. 900.
The county made no levy for bond in
terest in 1900 and in May 1901, Hudson
T. Morton, who held the old bonds,
brought suit against the county in the
federal court to collect the interest or
the bonds. On Feb. Z, 1908, judg-
ment was entered against the county
in this action for $22, 5ss.S2 as can be
seen in Book commissioners tecord,
page SO. In the meantime Morton had
commenced another action in the same
court against the county and on Feb. 1e
1909 in this action judgment was en-
tered against the county for sS, 7S5. so.
The county made cash payments or
these judgments but there was still due
on them Apr. l, 1909, the date of issu-
ing the refunding bonds, the sum OF
$l4,sl5.S5, fully accounted for, as above
stated, by the interest on the original
bonds, see Book s commissioners record
Page SO.
Instead Of giving its Leaders the facts
in regard to this matter. the Enterprise
and its legal adviser have attempted to
have the voters believe that there was
no back interest due on the old bonds at
the date Of refunding and that this sl4-
800 in additional bonds are not accounted
for by the records. This representation
is absolutely false and without any foun
dation in fact. as any voter can see by
an examination Of the records.
These gentlemen have been bowling
because Mr.. Keller who handled the
bond refunding for the county received
pay for his services. Under the COM
tract of refundipg, Mr.. Keeler was to
refund the county debt with six per
cent bonds. The bonds were to draw
five per cent interest and he was to re-
ceive in county certificates Of one, two
and three yeafs payment an amount e
quail 10 the difference in value between
q five per cent and six per cent bond.
The records show that this contract
was carried out and he received only
what the contract called for and the rec
ords fully accounts for every dollar in
volved In the transaction and these gen.
tlemen know It
The Misrepresentation they have at
tempted on this and other county mat
tiers simply for the purpose Of defeating
IL possible Gust johnson for reelection
as commissioner should open the eyes
of the voters to the fact that their can
paign representations cannot be relieo
upon. Their campaign methods are
rotten. They must have q very low es-
innate Of the mental ability Of the vot-
ers Of the county II they expect to fool
them by any such unreasonable talk q
bout the refunding Of the bonds. Mos,
Of the voters now in the county wer,
here in 1893 wh,n this refunding prop
osition was submitted TO the voters,
These two gsntlsoen who are now tear
ing their hair over the wrongs to the
taxpayer from the refunding Of the
bonds were hsrc also and. strange to shy,
they did not have anything to say why
the refunding Of the bonds as proposed
should not Be voted for by taxpayers
II there was anything wrong with III,
plan. they wore In as good u position Il
know 1t then n now but they had moth
ing to say tin this campaign when they
very suddenly discover that it was al
wrong and that the blame for the i'm
agined wrong should rest upon Gus
johnson whom. above all other candi
dates. they wish to defeat.