The Wahpeton times. [volume] (Wahpeton, Richland County, Dakota [N.D.]) 1879-1919, 1914-10-15
HANKINSON NEWS.
FULLY ANSWERED
PLAIN STATEMENT OF FACTS
Shows That Il 10 Me opponent
Who Should Explain 20 the
To the Voters of Richland Coun.

To the Voters of Richland Coun-
ty:
The Hankinson News of October
1st makes a -"eat hullabaloo
about the $1,000 paid to Wolfe &
Schneider in the COURT HOUSE
case. and also mentions the N. p.
case VS.. Richland Co. In its issue
OF October 8th it states that it did
not lnsinuate that County funds
were paid out in the N. p. case.
Ihe plain truth is: That the
News" and the author of the ar
tlcle. intended to DECEIVE THE
In the first place the News
states 1.-THE taxpayers were oblie9
ed to employ Wolfe & Schneller"
This is an ABSOLUTE FALSE
HOOD. Neither the taxpayers nor
Ihe County employed Wolfe &
schneller. The action in question
was against the Architects who
planned the building; against the
contractors who constructed fl:
against the County Commission
ers INDIVIDUALLY. as we'll as
against Richland Co.. as a muni-
clDal corporation. AS soon as the
action was begun both the Arch.
ltects and the Contractors en-
pioyed Wolfe & Scmeller-not as
States Attorneys. but as private
cOunsel-tO defend them in the
action. q don't know what the
County Commissioners did). n
was Mr.. Wolfe's contention from
the start that the County was
duty bound to pay the attorneys'
lees for both the Architects and
the Contractors. The action could
not ne tried piece-meal. but had
to be tried as whole; and Mr..
wolfe would have tried the same
II MT. Forbes had been elected
States Attorney in 1912.
The News. like most political
organs. however, states only one
side OF the case. 1t fails to state
tnat the present States ATTORNEY
was mducted into Office on the
aay Court convened in this county
II 1913: that up to that time Mr..
forDes was, assistant States at
torney.: that when he went ont Of
Office he left OVER SEVENTY CA
SES to which the State was a par
tX on the calendar-some of them
FIVE YEARS OLD. Could it be ex-
Dected that the present States At
torney was to prepare for dispO-
sltlon OVER SEVENTY CASES in
one days time? Had Mr.. Forbes
Deen as capable as the News tries
10 snow he was. and had done his
duty. there would have been less
than dozen cases on the calen-
dar for disposition and the pres
ent States Attorney would AFT
least have had some opportunitv
TO give consideration to the Ia.
NOUS COURT HOUSE CASE.
The News also fails to inform
IT'S readers that after Gustav
Schuler left the office of states
Attorney. and during the time
that Mr.. Forbes was the assistant
States attorney. Mr.. Schuler was
appointed as a special prosecuting
attorney to dispose of. and that he
did dispose of. NINE CASES. and
the TAXPAYERS of Richland Co
paid The freight" Neither did it
see ut to inform its readers THAT
DURING ONE YEAR while Mr..
Forbes was Assistant States At.
torney., Geo. p. Wallace was an
pointed as a special prosecuting
attorney a ona. and that he began FIVE
CASES. and that the TAXPAYERS
again paid the freight" In short.
the, truth of the matter is: That
under the present administra tion
the taxpayers paid the freight"
in ONE CASE. while under Mr..
Forbes administration as Assist
ant States Attorney they paid il
in FOURTEEN CASES. 1t is also
true that. regardless of whether
Mr.. Forbes or myself had been
e!ec1d States Attorney in 1912.
MT: Wife would have tried this
FAMOUS COURT HOUSE CASE
and his fee would have been paid
IN the same manner as it was
paid. and no one knows this het-
ter than the Hankinson News and
the author of the article publish
ed i'm the News and afterwards CO.
pied into other papers of the
county.
Yours truly.
c. j. KACHELHOFFER.