"AS
A COMMITTEE OF TWENTY-FIVE REPUBLICANS VIEW THE MANAGEMENT OF
THE AFFAIRS OF THIS COUNTY:
"The
following is taken from the records of the district court at
Avoca. In the case of Shinn, Denton and Fenn v. The Board
of Supervisors, relating to the establishment of the
Nishnabotna drainage ditch No. 10, the supervisors secured
themselves to be subpoenaed as witnesses.
"The
trial was begun on the 20th day of April and concluded on the
29th day, 1912. The supervisors who were defendants claimed
fees as follows: G. W. Spencer, 8 days, 23 miles, $ 12.30; G
H. Darrington, 4 days, 60 miles, $ 10.00; W. C. Children, 5
days, 41 miles, $ 10.35. The court decided the case against
the plaintiffs and plaintiffs filed a motion to re-tax this
cost on the grounds that the statute expressly provides that
parties to an action are not entitled to witness fees and
these members of the board of supervisors being parties under
the statute, were not entitled to fees, but the court
overruled the motion and taxed the above fees to the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs paid the same to the clerk of the
court at Avoca.
"In
the case of Pullen, Steinberg & Cassell v. The Board of
Supervisors, tried in the Council Bluffs district court
the same motion was filed in that case, where Spencer,
Darrington and Children had claimed witness fees and the
court ruled that they were not entitled to fees, being
parties to the suit. So we have two rulings upon the question
made by the same judge and in direct conflict. The ruling in
the Council Bluffs case was made about six weeks after the
one made in Avoca.
"Supervisor Darrington filed a bill against
the county for committee work which was paid from the general
fund of the county as follows: Apr. 21, $ 4.50; Apr. 22, $
4.20; Apr. 26, $ 5.05; Apr. 28, $ 6.00. Supervisor Spencer
was paid $ 29.30 from the general fund for committee work on
Nishnabotna Extension Ditch No. 10, for the days of April 20,
21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28 and 29. Supervisor Children was paid $
10 mileage and $ 18 for committee work on the Nishnabotna
Extension Ditch No. 10, from the general fund for the dates
of Apr. 20, 21, 25, 26, 28 and 29.
"It
will be observed that Spencer, Darrington and Children
claimed fees for attending the District Court at Avoca, also
mileage for the same days that they claim compensation for
committee work and mileage. After claiming the witness fees
and judgment was entered against the plaintiffs for the same,
they directed the clerk, at Avoca, to turn these fees into
the general county fund.
"Mr.
Children and Mr. Darrington are candidates for re-election
and the foregoing statement of facts is submitted to the
voters of this county without comment.
"A.
The Board of Supervisors have wholly disregarded the law with
respect to keeping the proper records of the cost of the
construction of bridges and by disregarding the law has made
it almost impossible to ascertain what the bridges of the
county have cost the taxpayers. If they had kept the bridge
record as required by the statute it would be no trouble
whatever for the public to ascertain and know what any
particular bridge or concrete culvert had cost the taxpayers.
The following is the statute that they wholly neglected to
observe. Sec. 442, p. 3, of the Code, 1897, reads as follows:
"'The
Board is authorized and required to keep the following books:
(Third paragraph) A book to be known as the bridge book,
where a record of bridges shall be kept, in a numerical order
in each Congressional township, commencing in section one,
numbering each bridge; giving location in
fractional parts of section; name the kind of material used
for substruction and superstruction; give length and cost of
bridge, and when repaired, to keep a record of repairs and
charge it to the bridge; and warrants drawn in payment for
erection or repairs of bridges shall indicate the number of
the bridge for which it is issued in payment.'
"No
entries have been made in the bridge book, although there is
one in the auditor's office, since 1903. We give below a
sample of claims filed and allowed:
"Concrete
bridge, S. E. Corner of Carson, built by Lana, dated Sep. 30,
1909, allowed Nov. 10, same year, $ 960.00.
"Sep.
30, 1909, Lana files bill against county, between Secs. 27
and 34, Center, 48 In. concrete tile, 44 ft., at $ 5.50, $
242.00.
"Oct.
28, 1910, W. M. Lana, 36-ft. 60-in. reinforced, con. culvert,
$ 5.50, total $ 198.00.
"Oct.
28, 1910, Lana between 19 and 30, Knox, 52 ft. 48 culvert, $
5.50, $ 286, allowed Nov. 1910. Bill not signed or sworn to.
"Nov.
8, 1910, W. M. Lana, between 8 and 17, Knox twp., 30-ft.
cement bridge, $ 1,198.00.
"Aug.
1, 1910, W. M. Lana, 40-ft. 48 corrugate at $ 4.00, $ 160.00.
"Sept.
6, 1910, same at $ 3.20 near George Dye's.
"During
1909-10 and 11 Lana charged the county $ 10.00 per M. for
handling old lumber.
"Sep.
13, 1909, W. M. Lana, between Secs. 3 and 10, Valley 44 ft.
of 48, concrete tile, $ 5.50, $ 240.00.
"Oct.
7, 1909, W. M. Lana, between Sec. 11 and 14, Norwalk,
concrete culvert, 5x8x55 with wing walls, $ 1,600.00.
"Jan.
5, 1909, minute book (Record of Board of Supervisors) 11, p.
346. On motion the treasurer is allowed as salary for the
ensuing term the sum of $ 8,500.00 per annum, the same to be
in full for salary, deputy and clerk hire, he to turn into
the county treasury all fees coming into his hands.
"Minute
book 11, p. 563, Jan. 14, 1911. Moved and seconded, that salary of all other county officers, deputies and
assistants be placed the same as allowed during 1909, 1910.
Carried.
"B.
Tinley & Mitchell were allowed $ 600.00 as attorneys'
fees out of the funds of ditch No. 10 for the trial of the
Shinn & Denton appeal case.
"C.
District court record 10, page 479, at Avoca, in case of
Perks v. Board of Supervisors and Drainage District
No. 10. April 19, 1912, 'By agreement it is ordered that
the classification and taxation of lands of Frank Perks be
reduced as follows:
"'Lot 3 Aud. sub. nw. se. 15, 100 per cent to 75 per
cent, $ 285 to $ 214.75.
"'Lot
2, Aud. sub. sw. se., 20, 100 per cent to 75 per cent, $
380.00 to $ 285.00.
"'Lot
4, Aud. sub., se. se., 7.98, 100 per cent to 75 per cent, $
151.62 to $ 113.72.'
"The
statute provides that the Board of Supervisors acting as
drainage commissioners shall set and hear objections to the
assessment of benefits, they fixing a time when they will
hear objections and proof and change and modify any
assessment of benefits that may seem to them unfair, but we
know of no law after they have passed upon assessment of
benefits, as they did in the Perks case, and after the matter
is appealed to the courts, to permit them to enter into a
compromise reducing the assessment, thereby imposing a burden
upon all other owners of land within the drainage district.
"The
Board of Supervisors are but the agents of the drainage
district and are legally and morally bound to protect the
interest alike of all landowners within the district.
"When
they were considering the matter of the establishing of
Drainage District No. 10 and while the board was going over
the proposed district viewing it to determine whether it was
of public utility, convenience and necessary for them to
establish it, and while at Carson they directed the auditor
to purchase postal cards and send to each landowner, upon which he should vote for and against the
establishment of the district. This the auditor did and all
of the landowners with the exception of three or four marked
their vote on the postal card and mailed them to the auditor.
When the cards were counted, there were almost three to one
voted against the establishment of the district.
"Mr.
Children took the cards into a separate room into the court
house and proceeded to estimate the benefits that each
landowner would be taxed for and he figured out that those
who were in favor of the ditch would be required to pay more
than those who were opposed. In other words, he would allow a
vote for every dollar that each landowner would be required
to pay, putting the lands of those who were in favor in the
one hundred per cent class, allowing them 100 votes for each
acre of land, and placing the fifty per cent class and lower
who were opposed, allowing them 25 and 50 votes.
"It must be remembered at this time that the
commissioners the law allows to be appointed to classify the
lands and assess the benefits had not been appointed and had...
