Saturday news. (Watertown, S.D.) 19??-19??, 1916-06-29
County Board and
The Redistricting of
County Of Codington
Not Considered in January, as Enron,
eousiy Stated Last Week-Can.
not Now Be Divided.

Let this be deemed an editorial
statement.
The editor of The Saturday News
was Summoned before the august
board of county commissioners last
Tuesday to explain the criticism the
paper made last week concerning the
failure OF the board to redistrict the
county, in accordance with the law
of 1915.
The Saturday News, therefore, begs
the boards pardon for its uninten-
tional error. The matter of redis-
t~ricting the county was not consider
ed in the January meeting. Nothing
was said about it in January, although
Chairman Paterson said that the en-
tire board knew about it as long ago
as May, 1915, Don after the session
laws of 1915 were published, but had
not taken it UP in January.
Let it be here stated that The Sat
tlrday News does not particularly
blame the outside members for their
failure to force a redistricting of the
county in order that Watertown may
be accorded the two commissioners
to which it is entitled under the law.
II the member representing the city
hasn't sufficient interest in getting
what the city may have for the ask
ing, it is not to be expected that the
commissioners representing the out
side districts are going to force the
Watertown commissioner to share the
honors with another member!
1t was in the March meeting, not
the January, that Mr.. ]. B. Hanten
appeared before the board and sug-
gested that the county be redistrict-
ed. 1t was then that Commissioner
Bannister, representing Watertown,
offered a motion that the board pro-
coed to redistrict. 1t was also then
that it was practically concluded that,
under the court decisions, redistrict-
ing can be brought about only at the
specific times provided for by the
law, and that, therefore, Mr.. Bannis-
etr's motion could not be accepted.
Had the motion been offered in jan
uary, the time provided by law, it
would have been different and the re-
gdistricting might have taken place.
But. as already stated, we do not
attach any special blame to the men,
bers outside of Watertown, not even
TO Mr.. Paterson, who was the spokes-
man in catechising the editor Of The
Saturday News.
We can but wonder, however, as
indicated in last weeks edition,
whether the fact that the law itself
fails to contain a clause whereby the
commissioner can be Jailed II other
wise punished for neglect of duty had
anything to do with the failure of the
WATERFOWL commissioner even to
mention the matter of redistricting
sat the January meeting.
But we want to call the attention
of the people Of Watertown to what
chairman Paterson said about the
demand within Watertown for redis-
tricting, so that the city may have
two members of the board. Nobody,
said Mr.. Paterson. in substance, but
IA few especially favored ones in the
way of reductions of assessments
have asked that Watertown have two
commissioners. Not even the Water
town commissioner did SO until prod
ded by Mr.. Hanten.
If nobody but a specially
few land it doesn't appear that they
county are going to ask that Wa
tertown be accorded its share of rep
resentation on the board, we Judge,
from MI. Paterson's remarks, that
Watertown will get what it is asking
for--nothing.
Since it is believed that redistrict-
AtZ ElEHU