Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1912-03-21

The attorney general has rendered
an opinion to- the county commission
ers Of Beltrami county to the effect
that ditch bonds cannot be sold at less
than par value. According to this
the $3,150 commission paid for the
disposal of some Marshall county
bonds was an illegal transaction
Argyle Banner.
'Mr. Brown did not say anything
about the legality of this transaction
but the law plainly says that the
ditching bonds cannot be sold below
par. When the county paid Mr.. Mat
teson (who, by the way, is an officer
of the bond company who purchased
the bonds) the $4,000, they sold the
bonds at just that much below par
value, which act was an infringement
upon the law.
will Mr.. Brown kindly condescend
to come down from his high perch and
explain to the taxpayers why he would
hand Mr.. Matteson $S,150.oo contrary
to the laws of the state ?"-"Taxpay-
er" in Argyle Banner.
The above is the most definite
charge that the Banner has made in
connection with Marshall County ditch
matters. Again and again it has re-
ferred to the action of. the Marshall
county board paying $3.50 commits
sion for sale of the ditch bonds, and
thereon, evidently, 1t bases its charg-
es of graft.
Now what are the facts in the case?
The attorney general has never rem
dered an opinion to the effect that the
paying of a commission for the sale
of ditch bonds was an illegal act
Moreover, the county board of Bel
trami county was compelled to pay
commission of $4,000 in order to be
able to sell it's $220,000 ditch bonds
for Judicial ditch No. II, as the Ban
ner can learn by reading the proceed
ings of the county board of said coun-
ty. Furthermore, the attorney gen.
eral of the state was present at the
meeting of the county board in the
city of Bemidji when the action was
taken and advised and counselled
with the board in regard to the mat
ter. 1t was upon his recommendation
that the county board did act in the
premises. These being the true facts
in the case, as the Banner can easily
find out and verify for itself, if it
wants to, every fair-minded citizen
can readily see that the Banners S
whole charge of graft and of over-rid-
ing the law in connection with ditch
matters in Marshall county falls flat
and is entirely groundless. The prop
is taken from under the Banner S
charges and the paper lies floundering
in the slough of Justification and mis-.
representation that it has dug for it.
self.
Banner Does Not Want investigation
The Public Examiners Department
is supposed to investigate crooked
ness connected with the management
of county affairs, and it seems to us
that a thorough examination of ditch
matters by one or more expert exam
iners from that department is abou1
what this county needs. EDITORIAL
Argyle Banner.
The only way to investigate is K
have such investigation made by thu
Public Examiner and the ATTORNEY
Generals Office and let their officer,
whose duty it is to make such inves
tigations prove this matter in mos
thorough manner and then the tax
payers can expect a fair investiga
ton" Taxpayer in Argyle Banner
From the above it would appea
that the Banner as well as "Taxpay
err are in favor Of an Investigation o
Z county ditch matters by the Publ
E Examiners department. Now MI
Brown in his reply to the Banner pull
lished few weeks ago also suggest
that the Public Examiner could b
called upon to make an investigation
Here the Banner, Taxpayer an
Mr.. Brown, all meet on commo
ground, All agree that the Publ
4 Examiner may make an investigs
ton. Now, why don't the Banner, 9