The diamond drill., 1917-11-10

county board Of supervisors. This IS
one or the most important meetings OF
the board OF supervisors and for this
reason the proceedings should be
read more carefully than at any 9TH
er time, as the apportionment of tax
es, setting OF salaries OF county Off
GERS and other important business Is
usually transacted at this meeting.
At meeting held some time ago a
subcommittee, consisting of Thomas
Conlin. Charles r. Lawrence and Paul
N. Minckler. was appoipted by the
county board TO investigate the poor
= system OF other counties IS we'll as
Sfron county. with instructions TO re-
port at the annual meeting OF the
board. At the adjourned meeting OF the
board held on the 13 inst. this com
mittee made It's report. and in this re-
!, port It was recommended that the man
ner OF taking care Of the poor OF the
county should be changed from the
widows pensions and township sys-
TENS TO that OF the county poor system
bringing the care OF the poor direct
ly under the supervision OF the coun-
ty poor commissioners. This report
OF the subcommittee Is well wortd
reading and studying over which is
something that the board OF superyis-
ors probably did not do, as the report
was read by the chairman OF the com
mittee and a resolution changing toI
the county poor system shortly after.
In the report the subcommittee
charges the heavy expense OF taking
care OF the poor directly TO the wild
ows' pensions as handled by the Judge
OF probate. In an effort to show what
IL was costing the county under this
system the subcommittee takes 1--WE
months OF widows pension, January,
February, March. April and May, the
hardest FIVE months In the entire year
that widow, or any other person for
that matter. has TO contend with. and
compares that period with the town
ship and poor commission systems OF
taking care OF the poor for an entire
year. April /. 1916, to April /, 1917
In this comparison the widows PEN
sions naturally Is given the worst OF
the deal and ls made to show that 1t
is costing the county far more under
the former than under the latter. In
the FIVE months referred to by the
subcommittee the cost OF taking care
of the widows and orphans Is natural
iy heavier than for the six months
Immediately following. as amounts
allowed are usually reduced during
the summer months. when the widow
has a much better opportunity to take
care OF herself and her children than
she has during the cold winter months
when she needs wood, clothing, food,
etc, in greater quantities than during
the summer months. Yet the sub
committee does not take this fact in
10 consideration In making its COM
parison, for obvious reasons it Is
probably opposed to the widows pen
sion system.
In the subcommittee report it
makes the following statement to
which we wish to call the attention
OF our readers.
Again It is shown that when an APP
plication Is made for pension in
such counties the probate judge in
variably asks the county poor com
missioners to make an investigation,
whereas in this county the probate
Judge consults the supervisor from
the township which the request emin-
ates. and as a rules the supervisor is
satisfied TO shift the burden off onto
the county This policy is induced for
two reasons: First. 1t relieves his
township OF the burden and, Secondly,
he feels that other townships are
shifting all the burden they can and
Il is to his interest to get as much as
the other townships get
III the balance OF the sub-commit-
tees report Is no nearer being correct
than the statement above quoted then
Il Is certainly not worth the paper II
is written on. When the sub-commit-
tee states that the Judge OF probate
in this county consults the supervisor
from the township from which the re-
quest eminates, the subcommittee
states something that Is not so. The
subcommittee evidently never heard
OF Charles Negebauer. county agent,
who holds his Office by the grace Of
the governor OF this state, and the
board OF corrections and charities.
Negebauer issthe man to whom the