COWLEY COUNTY SCRIP.

 

Since the organization of this county in March, 1870, there has been issued for all expenses $23,026, in county scrip, an average of $7,675, for the annual expenses of the county . . . . [Rest obscured: skipped.]

Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 13, 1873.

                                               “When Found, Make a Note on.”

The piteous howl wrung from the “County Cowley Telegram” when the edict went forth proclaiming the COURIER the official county paper, is yet ringing in the ears of our citizens. They wanted a few short hours at the public crib; wanted to leech enough of the life-blood of the county to sustain them in their latter days when the sun of their existence was waning, and because of the failure, perpetrated a series of falsehoods and misrepresentations to curry the favor of the public and poison the minds of the honest Republicans of the county.

And what is the object of all this?

One example will suffice to show the thinking voter what extent of the guilt can be attached to the Commissioners.

At the opening of the County Commissioners, on the 7th inst., the publishers of this paper presented a bill for printing the election proclamations of the county building and

K. & N. R. R., for which the law allowed us $28.10.

The towering intellect (?), the massive brain owner (?), who manipulates the “smut machine” of Cowley County, he who has cried “thief! thief!” and there was no thief, presented a bill for the same work of $35.40.

“What a falling off was there” from the high pinnacle of justice to the tax-ridden people of Cowley.

It says to you, voters, in terms that you cannot avoid seeing, “only give us a golden chance at the public purse by electing a ‘good old democratic’ ticket, composed of one “alf and alf Republican and four Dem-Liberal office-seekers and I can soon feather my nest with county scrip, at the rate of $25.50 on the hundred more than the law allows me.”

The Commissioners allowed them the same amount as claimed by the COURIER and of course will meet condemnation at the hands of the editor of the Telegram.

But he is not the only one in the city of Winfield that is dreaming of a harvest after the fall election. Many of our neighbors wear a lengthened, dreamy face, living all the while in fond anticipation of the Golconda which they hope is awaiting them when the result of the campaign is announced.

Arouse yourselves, republicans, and shake off the feeling of indifference that has seized you, assert your principles and demand an investigation.

We shall have occasion during the coming campaign to discuss the qualifications and defects of the various aspirants and shall do it fearlessly and without regard to favor, not shielding anyone because they happen to belong to the same political party that we have the honor to claim connection with, believing in purity if it thins the ranks one-half.

[COMMISSIONERS PROCEEDINGS OF JUNE 10, 11.]

Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 19, 1873.


In regard to the Courthouse award, it was ascertained that the county must pay its indebtedness in warrants, and that bids for cash could not be legally considered and the whole proceedings were set aside and an order made that sealed bids for erecting the Courthouse according to the plans and specification on file in the Clerk’s office would be received until 2 o’clock p.m., the 11th inst., and the County Attorney was directed to inform the former builders of the order made.

Adjourned until 11th inst.

11th inst. Board met as per adjournment.

All present: proceeded to open bids for Courthouse. Three bids were read, and the contract was awarded to Messrs. Stewart & Simpson, at $9,000 in scrip, their’s being the lowest bid to give bonds in double the amount of the bid, and the sureties to qualify in double the amount of the bond or for $36,000.

Messrs. Stewart & Simpson returned with their bond, and signed the contract. The sureties to the bond then qualified in the sum of $75,000. Bond approved.

Board adjourned until regular meeting of July 7th, 1873. FRANK COX, Chairman,

A. A. JACKSON, County Clerk, Per J. P. SHORT, Deputy Clerk.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, September 18, 1873.

                                              [From the Arkansas City Traveler.]

There are twenty-two pupils enrolled on the school records now.

City Scrip is selling for 80 cents, County Scrip 80 cents, and School Bonds at 90 cents.

Our Township Trustee declines to sign the Arkansas River Bridge bonds on account of the decrease of the value of the bridge since the bonds were voted.

Winfield Courier, February 6, 1874.

                                                     THE COUNTY DEBT.

We understand, since our arrival at home, that an effort is being made to have Mr. Martin procure the necessary legislation allowing the Board of County Commissioners to fund, or rather bond, the county indebtedness. We do not believe that the people of Cowley County wish this thing done. Twelve months ago, the circumstances were altogether different. Then we had a Court­house to build and many thought it necessary to provide funds for that. But now that our county buildings are all complete, we can see no necessity for it. We are very well aware that it would be money in the pockets of a few, for instance, county officials, who have to take most, or all their fees, in scrip. But we are now hopeful that the tax next year, with care and economy, will clear the county almost, if not altogether, of debt. In the present state of affairs we would not favor any bill authorizing the Board to bond the debt without first submitting the question to a vote of the people of the county. And we hope that whatever legislation Mr. Martin secures in that particular will provide that the question be so submitted. We would be glad to hear from our readers on this subject, that we may act understandingly in the matter and take such action as will place the county on the best financial basis having due regard for those who hold the county’s “promises to pay.”

[EDITORIAL PAGE: THE COUNTY RECORDS.]

Winfield Courier, February 6, 1874.

                                                 THE COUNTY RECORDS.


The readers of the COURIER will remember that we published sometime ago an intimation that the county records, as left by Mr. Jackson, were in a bad condition, and should be thoroughly investigated.

The County Board, no doubt acting on the COURIER’s sugges­tion, met at the County Clerk’s office, and after careful delib­eration, concluded to appoint a committee of three to straighten out the records and give the new County Clerk a fair start with the world. They accordingly selected S. M. Fall, of Lazette; Lucius Walton, of Pleasant Valley; and Wm. H. Grow, of Rock; three as good men as the county affords, men of integrity and ability.

The committee met last Monday and began their labors. They had not proceeded far, however, until they came to the conclusion that they had an elephant on their hands—seeing that to go over the records from the time the county was first organized would be a summer’s job. They very wisely asked the Board to meet and advise them as to their duties in the matter before proceeding any further. The Board of County Commissioners have not met at this writing, so we are unable to tell what they will do. We hope, however, that now that the matter has been commenced, it will be probed to the bottom. The people of this county have a right and they demand to know how their affairs stand. We believe that the COURIER has never yet accused anyone of “defal­cation,” “corruption,” or anything of the kind, and we hope that the gentlemen who have made the records will be able to clear themselves of any corrupt intention. But should such turn out to be the case, the guilty one, be he friend or foe, need expect no mercy from the COURIER.

LATER. Since the above was put in type, the Board of County Commissioners met, and yesterday were in secret session with the committee. The cauldron is boiling. It has been ascertained that Devore, our former county treasurer, is a defaulter to a considerable amount—how much, cannot at this writing be ascer­tained. J. P. Short, Mr. Devore’s deputy, has turned over to Mr. Kager, as near as we can come at it, some $680.00, which he should have turned over with the office in July, 1872. There is also found to be a large amount of scrip afloat which Mr. Jackson’s books show to have been canceled, rumor variously estimating the amount of such extra scrip, all the way from $5,000 to $10,000.

Let us look into this matter. Here is say, to strike an average, $5,000 in scrip taken in as county tax by Mr. Short, while deputy for Devore; he presents it to Mr. Jackson for cancellation. Jackson takes the No. and amount and marks can­celed on his book, hands them back to the treasurer, who may sell it, thus putting it afloat once more to be taken up at some future time.

Now follows a few pertinent queries: What right had Mr. Short to present these orders to Mr. Jackson to be canceled, until he had marked them “paid” across the face, in red ink, as the law requires?

Then, why did Mr. Jackson cancel these orders if they were not marked “paid?” Then naturally follows another most painful query: was this whole transaction a big steal? Or was it simply negligence and want of knowledge of the law?

We most sincerely hope the latter is the correct conjec­ture. [We could not get at the exact figures as the committee of investigation together with the County Board sat with closed doors so that we could not get in.]


We hope these gentlemen will think better of this matter, and allow at least the accredited representatives of the press to know what is transpiring. The people who read the papers are the taxpayers of the county and they have a right to know all about it, and will know, let it cost what it may, so long as we run a paper.

[EDITORIAL PAGE: LAWSUIT BY GEORGE L. THOMPSON.]

Winfield Courier, April 17, 1874.

                                                         THAT LAWSUIT.

Suit has been commenced in the U. S. Circuit Court of the District of Kansas, by one George L. Thompson, for the recovery of something over $6,000, interest included, for which he holds the warrants of this county. Who Mr. Thompson is, we know not, neither does it matter for the purpose of this article. The best legal talent concur in the opinion that judgment will be rendered against the county, for the amount claimed, and the costs of the suit.

The COURIER is charged with being in some way the remote cause of the action against the county, because it is alleged that we opposed bonding the debt. Here is what we did say in the COURIER of Feb. 6th, last.

                                                      THE COUNTY DEBT.

We understand, since our arrival at home, that an effort is being made to have Mr. Martin procure the necessary legislation allowing the Board of County Commissioners to fund or rather bond the county indebtedness. We do not believe that the people of Cowley County wish this thing done. Twelve months ago, the circumstances were altogether different. Then we had a Court­house to build, and many thought it necessary to provide funds for that. But now our county buildings are all complete, we can see no necessity for it. We are very well aware that it would be money in the pockets of a few, for instance, county officials, who have to take most or all their fees in scrip. But we are now hopeful that the tax next year, with care and economy, will clear the county almost, if not altogether, of debt. In the present state of affairs, we would not favor any bill authorizing the Board to bond the debt, without first submitting the question to a vote of the people of the county. And we hope that whatever legislation Mr. Martin secures in that particular will provide that the question be so submitted. We would be glad to hear from our readers on this subject, that we may act understandingly in the matter and take such action as will place the county on the best financial basis, having due regard for those who held the county’s ‘promises to pay.’

It will be seen that the main feature of the above article is to submit the proposition to the voters of the county. If the majority of the legal voters think it would be best to bond the debt, they can so express themselves, and then should it turn out to be a bad bargain, they can blame no one but themselves.

But it is useless to argue the point now; no enabling act was passed, and consequently, the Board can take no action in the matter, unless they may proceed under the act of a year ago, and bond $15,000 of the debt, which is all that act will admit. But it is a “leetle” queer that the very argument we made use of last year in favor of bonding the debt, should be used against us this year, by those who opposed the measure, and signed a remonstrance against it last year.


Whatever else the COURIER may be accused of, ambiguity is certainly not one of our failings; we endeavor to make ourselves understood. The COURIER frankly gives its reasons for the faith it held a year ago. Here they are: “Twelve months ago the circumstances were altogether different. Then we had a Court­house to build, and many thought it necessary to provide funds for that. But now our county buildings are complete, we see no necessity for it.” There, gentlemen, are the COURIER’s reasons for its seeming opposition to the proposition to bond the county debt. Now, gentlemen, you who signed a remonstrance against it last year and talked, and argued against it, you who denounced those who favored it as being a ring of county officials, to defend the county, what has come over the spirit of your dreams, that you now so ardently advocate what you denounced as a steal last year? Did you oppose it because you hadn’t all the scrip you wanted? And favor it now because you have your wallets full of warrants ready to convert into the bonds of the county? Honest, straightforward answers will relieve the public mind wonderfully.

We will have more to say on this subject hereafter.

Now follows a few pertinent queries: What right had Mr. Short to present these orders to Mr. Jackson to be canceled, until he had marked them “paid” across the face, in red ink, as the law requires?

Then, why did Mr. Jackson cancel these orders if they were not marked “paid?” Then naturally follows another most painful query: was this whole transaction a big steal? Or was it simply negligence and want of knowledge of the law?

We most sincerely hope the latter is the correct conjec­ture. [We could not get at the exact figures as the committee of investigation together with the County Board sat with closed doors so that we could not get in.]

We hope these gentlemen will think better of this matter, and allow at least the accredited representatives of the press to know what is transpiring. The people who read the papers are the taxpayers of the county and they have a right to know all about it, and will know, let it cost what it may, so long as we run a paper.

[EDITORIAL PAGE: THE OTHER SIDE.]

Winfield Courier, April 24, 1874.

                                                       THE OTHER SIDE.


The editor of the Telegram is howling at the COURIER, charging it with having so much influence with the granges of Cowley County, and Representative Martin, as to prevent the bonding of the county indebtedness. Among other idiotic state­ments he asserts that it would take a direct tax of, from seven to ten, percent to pay the county indebtedness, which he asserts is $28,000. This modern Euclid don’t know that a tax of one and one-half percent upon the taxable property of the county would raise $30,000. The valuation of the property of the county last year was $1,260,963.33-1/2. There were entered, prior to March 1st, 1873, 1,240 tracts of land, which were taxable last year; since which time, there has been entered and placed on the county clerk’s books 722 other tracts. Now, it is safe to estimate that the value of all property will have risen in the same proportion, or seven-twelfths more property for the purposes of taxation, then last year. This would give us a total valuation of $1,902,823. Then, including what mortgages can be taxed, and we have an aggregate in round numbers of $2,000,000. Then on a valuation of $2,000,000, a levy of one and one-half (1-1/2) percent, instead of 7 or 10, as the Telegram has it, would wipe out the debt. Pick your flint and try it again, brother Allison, or come over and take lessons in Arithmetic of our devil. But we do not propose to make any extra levy this year, to pay off the entire debt. If we can pay one-half this year, and the remaining half, next, we can do so, and scarcely feel it.

We were not aware that the COURIER had so much influence with Mr. Martin, last winter, as to deter that gentleman from putting an enabling act through the Legislature. Had we then but known, the COURIER’s most potent influence, we would have cer­tainly used it to prevent the passage of some of the outrageous measures that were enacted last winter. And, perhaps, had we been employed by certain scrip holders to go and stay in Topeka all winter, to run the Representative from Cowley, and see that he put a bond bill through, and then failed, after all our peculiar efforts, we might howl too.

[Note: This issue had two articles relative to stupidity on the part of the County Board in giving county printing to Allison. It worked! Kelly got printing soon after.]

Winfield Courier, June 12, 1874.

Before Judge Miller of the U. S. circuit court, sitting in Leavenworth last week, G. L. Thompson obtained a judgment against Cowley County upon unpaid county scrip for $6,299.48.

Winfield Courier, June 12, 1874.

In the Traveler report of the judgment taken against the county by Geo. L. Thompson, it erroneously gives it as “Scrip issued for the building of the courthouse.” This is incorrect. It was not the scrip issued to build the courthouse on which the county was sued.

[EDITORIAL: COMMUNICATION FROM M. G. TROUP, COUNTY CLERK.]

Winfield Courier, June 12, 1874.

                                                           Communicated.

                        OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK, Winfield, June 6th, 1874.

Much as I dislike the task of replying to every “fist” who sees fit to assail me, yet the report which lies before me, namely, the report of the late Investigating Committee, coming from the source that it does, is perhaps worthy of notice on my part. I dare say the people fancy this “good state of perfec­tion” report, from a committee appointed to investigate the affairs of this county, ought at least to be accurate, reliable, and truthful. But I am sorry that truth compels me to say it is neither of the three.

I wish to say a word as to the history of this investiga­tion. When I first came into office, I ascertained that the accounts of a former treasurer, who had been out of office nearly two years, were still open, and apparently unsettled. I wrote to the chairman of the board and apprised him of the fact, and saying I would like to have himself, and the balance of the board, at an early day, examine the records of my office. The board came to my office, examined the records, and concluded to appoint a committee to assist the Clerk, Treasurer, and County Attorney to straighten, and close up, the accounts of the county.


Now mark you, this committee was to assist the proper officers to do this business, or, as was suggested at the time, to see that the records were properly investigated, in all fairness to all parties concerned. I, of course, cheerfully acquiesced in the action of the board, and met the committee in all candor and frankness. The same civilities were observed on my part throughout the entire investigation. But not so with the committee. They soon began to feel the importance of their position, and began to run the investigation with an eye to their own welfare. I now come to the place where I suppose this “good state of perfection” committee took umbrage at my course in this matter. I say I suppose the difficulty arose from what I shall now mention, for in all candor and seriousness, I cannot for the life of me tell why this committee should throw dirt on my unoffending head.

After the committee had prosecuted their labors to a certain point, I meekly suggested to them and to the chairman of the board that it was a useless expenditure of the county’s funds to carry the investigation any farther.

About that time the committee began to look wise, whisper mysteriously, and to shun me. Now mark you, I did not like said committee to go about the streets of this city, look wise, and insinuate sly malicious slanders against any of the parties interested, but I went to the chairman of the board direct, and told him that it was certainly bad policy to prosecute the investigation any farther as it was certainly spending money that would result in no pecuniary benefit to the county.

The sequel shows I was right and hence the “ire” of this committee. But the board saw fit to listen to the malicious insinuations of this office seeking committee rather than take the advice of your humble servant, and what is the result. The county has squandered several hundred dollars for a report by which, if the county would settle, it would lose several hundred more. This committee, after arriving at a “good state of perfec­tion,” declare Mr. Kager had on hand, on the 1st day of July, 1873, a certain sum of money. I suppose it never occurred to these wiseacres to ask Kager whether he had that amount at the time specified or not. If they had done so, it would certainly have prevented them from making such asses of themselves as they have done. No, that would not do, they must needs rush into print, and say he ought to have had that much money, and leave the impression on the minds of the public that he did not have the money. Bah! Gentlemen, is that what you call a fair, honest, and impartial way of doing things?

Perhaps men who will resort to the same tricks that two-thirds of this committee practiced last fall to secure the offices they were investigating might call that an honest way to treat a fellow creature, but I hardly think the public will think so. Suppose Mr. Kager admits the amount they claim as correct, the county will have squandered several hundred dollars, and have its labor for its pains. But suppose Kager says he has more money on his hands than they claim, what a grand farce the whole thing is, and what asses this trio of chronic office seekers have made of themselves. And let me say right here that the latter supposition is the true one.

The treasurer had more money on the 1st day of July, 1873, than this “good state of perfection” claimed he had. But I beg pardon for intruding myself on the public in this matter. In fact, it is not my corpse. But since the committee, with the same degree of maliciousness that characterizes their entire report, have seen fit to say I threw especial obstacles in the way of their investigation, I should like to have them state publicly and positively what those obstacles were. If they had not willfully and falsely, and without any cause, threw the first dirt, I should not have said a word. But when I am so unjustly assailed as I have been in this case, I deem it a duty to defend myself.


If this investigation had been properly conducted with a view to perfecting the records of the county, it would have been a good thing. But since it was prosecuted wholly for the purpose of blasting the reputation of a few persons, and not for the purpose of closing the accounts of the county, as was intended, it can result in no good. A word about the records of the county, and I am done for this time. The records are in exactly the same condition they were, ere this committee was appointed. This office knows just as much as it did before. The accounts are still all open, and some future officer may want them closed, which will necessitate more investigating. Yours, M. G. TROUP.

[COMMUNICATION FROM S. M. FALL RE TROUP ARTICLE.]

Winfield Courier, June 19, 1874.

                                                      COMMUNICATED.

                                        LAZETTE, KANSAS, June 15th, 1874.

BRO. KELLY: In answer to an article which appeared in your paper June 12th, written by one M. G. Troup, we would say that the spirit of his piece is not good, and any man to read it carefully can see that it is a boastful, headstrong, lengthy, labored article.

Said committee considered it would be much better, and give more general satisfaction to be governed by instruction and advice from the County Commissioners, than a swell headed County Clerk, who repeatedly refused to let us have paper, pencils, receipts, etc., which we were justly entitled to in the prosecu­tion of the work.

If we had prosecuted the work in a way that Mr. Troup wanted us to, instead of the Commissioners, we would have been first rate fellows.

But because he could not run the committee and Commissioners to whitewash the thing and have it said that he is the Grand Mogul of the whole concern, he became impudent and sulky.

A man that undertook to find a delinquent list and upon trial couldn’t find a correct one, and yet swore he knew he was right and the committee a set of fools, and did not know anything about it, this committee has no use for.

I would suggest that brother Troup part his hair in the middle, take county scrip, and buy a new plug hat, let Cowley County furnish him a gold headed cane, in order that he may walk about the city, put on style, and be more in his natural element.

I do not wish to enter into a long personal dispute or quarrel in this matter, but if brother Troup don’t go a little slow, he will be shown up in a more minute and particular manner at no very distant day. Respectfully, S. M. FALL.

Winfield Courier, June 19, 1874.

County scrip is selling for sixty cents.

Scrip for City Cemetery???

[CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS JUNE 2, 1874.]

Winfield Courier, June 19, 1874.

The Council met at the courthouse June 2nd in pursuance of adjournment. Present: S. C. Smith, Mayor, and councilmen McMillen, Silver, and Darrah, J. W. Curns, Clerk. . . .

A petition was presented asking the council to call an election to determine whether the city should issue scrip to purchase the grounds of the Winfield Cemetery. On motion the petition was referred back to the petitioners.

Winfield Courier, July 17, 1874.

                                    Statement of the Expenses of the Old Board

                                                  Of County Commissioners.


The following is a statement of the expenses of Cowley County for all purposes during the year commencing July 1st, 1873, and ending July 1st, 1874. Showing the amount expended during the last half of 1873, and the amount expended by the new board for the first half of 1874. Also the receipts of the year and the liabilities of the county at the beginning and end of the year.

Note: Lengthy and complicated statement skipped. Giving totals only.

Expended by Old Board: $20,305.70

Expended by New Board: $5,499.89

Total Expended For the Year: $25,805.59

Old Board spent $10,600.69 for courthouse and $670.03 for furniture for it.

New Board spent $129.19 for courthouse furniture.

New Board spent $222.00 for investigating committee.

Statement had other pertinent entries:

Amount of scrip afloat July 1st, A. D. 1873, $16,971.17.

Total expenditures for the year: $25,805.59

Receipts for the year: $15,151.59.

Amount of scrip afloat July 1st, 1874: $27,625.07.

I, M. G. Troup, County Clerk of the board of County Commis­sioners, hereby certify that the above is a correct statement of the expenditures, receipts, and indebtedness of Cowley County for the year ending July 1st, 1874.

Witness my hand and official seal this 14 day of July, A. D. 1874.

                                                 M. G. TROUP, County Clerk.

Winfield Courier, July 24, 1874.

A. T. Shenneman wants to buy some County Scrip.

Again...Winfield Cemetery Association..

[CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS: JULY 6, 1874.]

Winfield Courier, July 24, 1874.

                                                       Council Proceedings.

Council met July 6th, 1874, at usual hour. Mayor S. C. Smith in the chair. Present: councilmen S. Darrah, R. B. Saffold, and H. S. Silver. Minutes of last meeting were read and approved.

A petition was presented asking the council to call an election to take sense of the voters upon the proposition of the city purchasing the ground of the Winfield Cemetery Associa-tion, and issuing scrip and bonds to pay for the same.

On motion the petition was referred to a committee consist­ing of R. B. Saffold, H. S. Silver, and S. Darrah, who were instructed to examine and report at their next meeting.

On motion council adjourned to meet at next regular meeting. J. W. CURNS, City Clerk.

Winfield Courier, September 25, 1874. [Editorial by James Kelly.]

                                               THE POST OFFICE “RING.”

                                        WHAT IT DID, AND TRIED TO DO!

                                     HOW TO KEEP A RASCAL IN OFFICE.

                                        The Men Who Control the Opposition.

                                                  Chapter of Sound Reading.


The readers of the COURIER will bear witness to our patience under the slanderous misrepresentations of the Telegram and its allies, for two years past. We have hoped in forbearance to avoid a conflict with the “ring” that keeps that paper on its legs. Long since the people of the county withdrew their support from it on account of its personal abuse and unreliability. For more than a year it has been kept running by desperate make­shifts, by moving from room to room, and from garret to cellar about town because it could not pay rent. By paying its employ­ees with promises, by borrowing material, by taking continuances in court against creditors who were trying to compel it, or its editor, to pay their honest debts, and with the aid of all the subterfuges, practiced only by scoundrels, backed by a ring that we hereafter describe in detail, it has succeeded in maintaining a sickly existence.

The ostensible purpose of its being is reform in politics and abuse of Manning. The real purpose of its being is the maintenance of the “Post Office ring” in Winfield. This ring has no influence in the country whatever except through it organ, the Telegram.

  If a democrat in Pleasant Valley wants an office, he knows he must get it without the aid of the republican party—hence he comes to town, joins the post office ring in the abuse of the republican party, and says that Manning runs it. This is report­ed to the Telegram and at once Mr. Democrat is called a hardy son of toil, and a good man for some office. No questions are asked about his qualifications in reading, writing, or spelling, nor is his past character looked into. It is enough to know that he is opposed to Manning.

If a bull-head from Tisdale Township wants an office, whose ignorance and stupidity makes him a failure as a farmer, and who cannot get an endorsement from any intelligent man in the county, he at once seeks the P. O. ring, puts in some heavy anathemas against the Republican party in general and Manning in particu­lar, and he is at once reported to the Telegram as a good man from Tisdale to work up the reform ticket in that locality.

If a bummer of Arkansas City, who has been kicked out of the Republican party for incompetency, ignorance, and rascality, wants an office, he writes an abusive article about Manning specially, and the Republican party generally, signs himself “Republican” or “farmer,” sends it to the Telegram for publica­tion, whereupon the P. O. ring set him down as one of the “good, noble, and true,” men of Creswell Township who are disgusted with conventions and party lines, and who will make a good candidate on the “reform” ticket for some office.

Now and then a man who has voted for the Republican ticket for years from principle, is proposed for some office, and is beaten in convention because some other man is thought to be better, and he in a fit of passion and disappointment will fall to berating the Republican party or some of its members, whereupon the P. O. ring and Telegram fall to besliming him and convincing him that he was beaten by a trick, and that merit has no show in the Republican organization, and his only hope is to be a “reformer.”

When the creditors of Allison or the Telegram press too hard upon the concern for pay, postmaster Johnston, or M. L. Read, step in with either cash or security and give relief. They can’t afford to have the thing go down. Thus the P. O. “ring,” by management, and the Telegram by blowing, have made and are making perpetual war on:

1st. The Republican party of Cowley County.

2nd. On the financial interests of Cowley County.

3rd. On the material development of Cowley County.


4th. On the business prosperity of Winfield.

Now we propose to show how it is done, and to show up the men who are doing it.

As to the first charge: the Republican party of Cowley County is or should be composed of men who adhere to the princi­ple and policy of the national party, and carrying its principles and policy into Cowley County affairs, they demand that honest, competent, and honorable men be put in office, and that the public money be economically used, and strictly accounted for. That manufactories be fostered and markets for produce be estab­lished. To this end has the COURIER labored. To this end have the active members of the party devoted their energies political­ly. We challenge from anyone a successful contradiction of this statement.

The P. O. ring and the Telegram, have done for two years, and are still doing their best, to destroy the Republican party, and to defeat its noble mission. Two years ago this fall the

P. O. ring opposed the Republican nominees and worked up the liberal ticket and supported it. Capt. McDermott, the Republican nominee, was elected to the House in spite of them. As a member of the legislature from Cowley County he sent forty copies of the Commonwealth every week during the session, to the Winfield post office for distribution among the people here that they might know what the action of their representative was. Postmaster Johnston did not distribute those papers, but destroyed them, and Capt. McDermott knew nothing of it until his return. Not one word of reproach can be raised against Capt. McDermott while a member of the legislature.

Nor can one word of reproach be truthfully said against any of the county officers elected by the Republican party two years ago, save it be some acts of the county board.

Now we declare that neither the Republican party nor any of its active members were responsible for the actions of the board which were subject to criticism. The county board was composed of two men, Messrs. Cox and Maurer, who were elected by the Republican party, and Mr. Smith, the other, was elected on the liberal ticket. There are but one or two acts of that board that can by any stretch of the imagination be subjected to justifiable censure. One is the erection of the courthouse, without authori­ty from the people, another was extravagance in purchasing books and blanks for the county officers.

For the first act, Col. J. M. Alexander and the P. O. ring are responsible. They are the parties who more than anyone persuaded Mr. Cox to make the contract with the city of Winfield to build a courthouse and jail.

Mr. Maurer, one of the Republican commissioners of the county, never consented to the movement. This action of the board was taken, too, in the face of a protest against it, signed by several prominent Republicans of Cowley County, E. C. Manning among the number.

The Telegram at the time endorsed the action of the board, and ridiculed the protest. This action of the P. O. ring cost the county $12,500.


For the second act A. A. Jackson, a Democrat, elected on the “people’s” ticket, is responsible. He was familiar with the wants of the various county officers, and ordered books and blanks at pleasure. He obtained the confidence of the board and either recommended all the books and blanks that were ordered or else ordered them himself, and afterwards obtained the sanction of the board by stating that they were necessary. Jackson made a certain percent on all the books and blanks ordered by him by special arrangement with the various firms from which he ordered them. Jackson was one of the Telegram’s pets at that time and a howler against the Republican party, and of course that paper had no word of censure for him. By this arrangement the county lost several thousand dollars.

The two acts above mentioned are all that could in any fairness be censured, unless it be claimed that the salaries allowed some of the county officers be considered too high. This may be true, but no party is to blame for that. Col. Alexander and other pets of the Telegram told the board that the salaries allowed the County Attorney and Probate Judge ought to be al­lowed, and several Republicans, among the number, E. C. Manning, discountenanced all these propositions, and Col. Manning de­clined to accept one half of the salary of the Probate Judge, notwithstanding he was entitled to it under the terms of his partnership association with Judge Johnson. He told Judge Johnson at the time that the salary was too large and he would not have a cent of any such money. So much for Colonel Manning, who we think deserves this mention at our hands, in passing, as he has been accused by the Telegram and its snuffers with being at the head, or bottom, of all the rascality ever perpetrated in the county.

An examination of County Clerk Jackson’s books, which was demanded by the COURIER and Mr. Troup, the Republican County Clerk, who succeeded Mr. Jackson, developed the fact that Jackson’s books, through incompetency, criminality, or both, were in a scandalously incorrect condition, and that J. P. Short, Deputy County Treasurer, had embezzled several thousand dollars of public money. Short was not a Republican elect, but was a member of the P. O. “Ring,” a pet of the Telegram, and a howler against the Republican party.

An investigating committee of three, two of whom, the Chairman and one other member, opposed the Republican party last fall, has thus far failed to find anything wrong with the affairs of the Republican county officers although they have been in session several months.

The Telegram is for anybody or anything that will keep T. K. Johnston in the Post Office at Winfield, and serve the interests of its masters, Read & Robinson, and Alexander & Saffold.

When the COURIER expressed the sense of the Republicans of Cowley County, by reproaching Judge Lowe, our member of Congress, for his vote in favor of the salary gain  bill, the Telegram made haste to endorse Judge Lowe, and the P. O. Ring sent Lowe a marked copy of each paper. About that time there was an effort made to put Johnson out and put in somebody else, but it failed through Lowe’s influence. Lowe was told that all the Republicans wanted was a man in harmony with the party, no one was particular about the individual. But the COURIER had incurred Mr. Lowe’s displeasure for denouncing him in common with the other salary grabbers. This coupled with the “Ring” endorsement of him saved T. K. At the present hour, after abusing the Republican adminis­tration, national, state, and county, for two years, the Telegram hoists the Republican State ticket because it knows it will be elected anyway. This is done to get Governor Osborn’s endorse­ment to keep Johnston in the Post Office. It then hoists J. K. Hudson’s name, a newspaper publisher, as a candidate for Congress because he is a “farmer,” and hoists R. B. Saffold’s name for State Senator because he is a “reformer,” and opposed to the Republican party; while H. C. St. Clair, the Republican nominee, is a practical farmer and a patron of husbandry.


Now the Telegram and the “ring” are moving everything to organize an opposition to the Republican party of Cowley County this fall. Why? Because the Republican party won’t endorse Johnston, a man bitterly obnoxious to the public, and notoriously dishonest, as postmaster; won’t give the carpet-bagger from Leavenworth, Alexander, an office; won’t favor the bonding of the County debt so as to enable Read & Robinson, and a few non-residents, to convert the several thousands of dollars of Co. scrip that they hold, into cash. These are the real reasons, no matter what their pretended reasons are. This disposes of charge No. 1.

Now for charge No. 2.

“War on the financial interests of Cowley County.”

At the time the County Board let the Courthouse contract, Read & Robinson, bankers, were behind the scenes with the money bags. No one would take the contract unless the scrip could be cashed. Read & Robinson, bankers (known as M. L. Read), took the scrip at 65 cents on the dollar. They got it all. In August of last year, the Telegram “Ring” tried to hold a “farmers” politi­cal meeting at Winfield. They partially failed of their purpose. Rev. William Martin was one of the speakers of the occasion. The “ring” saw that Martin was the kind of stuff to make an available candidate out of, for the Legislature. He was just about stupid enough to be “above suspicion.” So T. K. Johnston went out to the old man’s home shortly after the meeting to interview him. He found the old man “sound,” found him possessed of that quali­fication without which no “reformer” in Cowley County is consid­ered sound, that is, he was opposed to Manning (that he didn’t know why he should be, doesn’t matter), and were he not a Reverend, might be induced to curse him, which would make him the more desirable. Anyway, he would oppose him and that was a good start in the right direction (although Manning was an invalid in the state of New York at that time and had been all summer, but at last accounts he was alive and consequently dangerous); then he would keep T. K. in the Post Office, and favor bonding Read & Robinson’s scrip, and besides was “above suspicion.” But the old man didn’t want to be the representative, or said he didn’t, nor would he consent to run. T. K. came back gloomy. The horizon about the Post office was beginning to get somewhat cloudy. By a little strategy, however, by representing to the old man that the people considered him “above suspicion,” and demanded that he make the sacrifice, the old man yielded. “Reform” delegates were worked up in Martin’s interest, and he was nominated. By Tele­gram falsehoods he was elected, and almost the first thing he did was to try to bond the scrip. The Telegram, backed by Read & Robinson, at home, and Allison at his elbow at Topeka, helped him. But the COURIER and the people opposed the measure and he failed.


Last week the Legislature met in extra session to relieve the destitute. Martin went to Topeka. Just before he went to take his seat, he had an interesting interview with members of the “ring.” We understand they went in a carriage to his resi­dence in the country and what took place at that interview, of course we can’t tell, except by what the Hon. William did when he reached Topeka. The second bill introduced into the House was “House bill No. 2 by William Martin to bond the debt of Cowley County.” It is no measure of relief, no stay of  law, no postpone­ment of taxes, no appropriation for the needy, no act of any kind for the relief of the poverty stricken of Cowley County, but an act to convert the scrip of Read & Robinson, Geo. L. Thompson, J. C. Horton, et al, into Cowley County bonds. This, too, in the face of the well known opposition of the taxpayers of Cowley County to bonds of any kind.

Charge No. 3: they make “war on the material inter­ests of Cowley County.” To this we say, that by stirring up strife, by seeking to promote personal ends, by detracting from the influence of those who would work unselfishly for the welfare of the whole county, they prevent that material development that awaits us if our people would work and counsel together.

The one overshadowing interest to Cowley County, after the distress of the present hard times is provided for, is the building of a railroad through the Indian Territory. The Republican party is turning its attention to this question.

The P. O. ring and the Telegram are too busy looking after county bonds and “available men” who are “above suspicion” to pay any attention to it. The “ring” delegates to the “reform” congressional conven­tion (Allison and A. Walton) did not go to Emporia and demand a recognition of the interests of Cowley County in that convention. They remained at home still looking for available men who were “above suspicion,” and to help Johnston watch the post office for fear Manning might steal it in their absence.

Cowley was not represented in the convention that nominated J. K. Hudson. What did these fellows care about a market for the farmer’s produce so long as they could get their votes? On the other hand, the Republicans sent active, able men to represent them, in the Republican convention at Emporia. Those delegates demanded that the candidates should be pledged to a railroad direct to Galveston, through the Indian Territory. The majority of the delegates in that convention lived on railroads that already lead to Galveston, and defeated the Cowley County resolu­tions offered by Col. Manning.

Now the Telegram jeers those delegates for their failure. The Telegram and the P. O. ring sneers at the efforts made to wake the people of Cowley up to the importance of this question.

As to the fourth charge, “war on the business prosperity of Winfield.”

The P. O. ring, and the Telegram, in order to divert atten­tion from their real designs, must abuse and malign someone, and these are generally the best men in town and county. A. T. Stewart, J. B. Fairbanks, C. M. Wood, Rev. Parmelee, C. A. Bliss, W. M. Boyer, and others, together with all the county officers it could not control, have suffered calumny at its hand. The people of the county are taught that the citizens of Winfield are thieves and cutthroats. This drives people away from the town. This divides our people among themselves. It prevents a coopera­tion among the citizens of the place in any laudable endeavor, either charitable, educational, religious, moral, or social, or for the general prosperity of the place. No one can deny this.

The COURIER has endeavored to establish good feeling among our own people, and to show to the people of the county that there was no cause for bad blood between town and country. It and its friends have received nothing but abuse in return.

The cabal that backs the Telegram in its baseness has its head and front in Alexander & Saffold, Read & Robinson, and T. K. Johnston. This “ring” is what Alexander calls the “respectable faction in the Republican party.”


We have written what we have written in calmness, after carefully considering the whole subject. We have no desire to make personal assaults on any man. But we have come to the conclusion that longer submission to the assaults of this “ring” upon us, through their mouth-piece, would be cowardly. And in the interests of the people of Cowley County, who have so long been mislead by the misrepresentations of this “ring,” we here­with fire our first shot.

I do not believe the next editorial has anything to do with “scrip.” MAW

[EDITORIAL RE TELEGRAM, ETC.]

Winfield Courier, September 25, 1874.

Astronomers tell us that the planet Jupiter has four satellites, whose apparent motion is oscillatory. That is, they weave first one way from Jupiter, and his attraction being so great as to force them to return, they fly back with such veloci­ty as to carry them beyond when they are compelled to return again, and so continue. All but one are represented as being larger than Jupiter. Singular as it may appear we have an imitation of this wonder in the animal kingdom. Jupiter and his satellites—Manning and his delegates: Walton, Boyer, Kelly, and Webb. Telegram of Sept. 18th.

The curious orthography of the word “satellites” in two places in the above extract and the remarkable discovery that three of Jupiter’s satellites are each larger than Jupiter, are earmarks of such ample proportions as to convince us that none other than the celebrated “God bless the Grangers” Alexander could be its author. As that would-be candidate for Congress and the State Senate has a hankering for the office of County Attorney, we suppose that Webb must be the smaller satellite referred to.

Winfield Courier, September 25, 1874.

Hon. William Martin drew his mileage from the State for traveling to Topeka and back. It amounted to almost $50. He had a pass on the railroad from Wichita to Topeka and back, which he accepted on condition that he would not draw mileage from the State. Martin is a “reformer” and “honest,” and a friend to “farmers,” “opposed to monopolies,” “in favor of retrenchment,” and “above suspicion.” But he failed to bond the county scrip, and the “ring” is not happy.

[EDITORIAL: A CARD FROM W. M. MARTIN.]

Winfield Courier, October 9, 1874.

                                                                A CARD.

                                           WINFIELD, KAN., Sept. 28, 1874.

Editor Traveler: Dear Sir: In looking over a copy of the COURIER of last week, I see there are certain charges made against myself and others. Which charges, in so far as they relate to myself, I pronounce untrue from beginning to end; except one, and that is that I offered a bill in the special session of the Legislature providing for the funding of our county debt. And if this was criminal, I have only to say to the COURIER that I did so after consulting with prominent Republicans in reference to such a bill, and being encouraged by them to make such a move, I call upon the COURIER man to make goods his charges. Very respectfully, WM. MARTIN.

The Courier response:


The above we take from the Traveler. Why send your denial to the Traveler, Mr. Martin? Why not send it to the paper which made the charges you complain of. The fact that you sent it to any other paper than the COURIER, shows either that you do not understand the common courtesies, or that you are a moral coward. No doubt it would have been just what you wished if your card in the Traveler should by some chance have escaped notice. It would have left you with a challenge out, of which we knew nothing, which might materially assist you in securing another nomination.

You start out by saying that the COURIER’s charges in so far as they relate to you “are untrue from beginning to end, except one, etc.” Now, Mr. Martin, what are the charges made against you by the COURIER? As you have not the manliness to say what they are, we shall make them specific.

1st. “That you are but the pliant tool of T. K. Johnston and the P. O. ‘Ring.’” Do you deny that you were consulted by them as to your being a candidate last fall?

2nd. “That you were just stupid enough to be above suspi­cion.” Do you deny that? True it is rather a hard personal charge to make against you. But you are a public man, Mr. Martin, and have to put up with the criticisms of the public, whether you will or no.

3rd. “That you went to Topeka last winter cocked and primed, with Allison, your adviser, at your elbow, to pass a bill funding the county debt.” Do you deny that?

4th. “That you accepted a pass from the A. T. & S. F. railroad, and drew your mileage besides.” Do you deny that?

Now allow the COURIER to propound to you a few pertinent questions which you can answer by yes, or no.

Did you accept a pass on the railroad to Topeka and return, during the extra session?

Did you draw mileage to the amount of $67.50?

And did you not know that the condition of that pass was that you were not to draw mileage from the state?

Haven’t you consulted T. K. Johnston and other members of the Winfield P. O. Scrip “Ring,” as to your being a candidate again this fall?

You are welcome to the columns of the COURIER, Mr. Martin, in which to answer all their queries. At the request of a mutual friend, Mr. Martin, we had intended to let you drop into that obscurity from which, for the good of yourself and certainly for that of Cowley County, you should never have been called. But your card in the Traveler, releases us from any promise we made to let you alone in the future, and we are now ready to deal with you the same as we would with any other public man.

We have no desire to accuse you of dishonesty, Mr. Martin. What we do accuse you of, is that you allow yourself to be made the tool of a few renegade republicans and democrats, such as constitute the P. O. “Ring” here in Winfield.

Winfield Courier, November 26, 1874. Editorial.

We stood by and witnessed the burning of some seven thousand dollars worth of the debt of Cowley County, yesterday. Some of the scrip was of the oldest issue of the county. The plaguey stuff had to be coaxed to burn. Would that the entire debt could be disposed of in the same way.

Winfield Courier, December 3, 1874.


It is high time that our city authorities or road overseer were taking some notice of the mud holes on Main Street. They have become an unbearable nuisance. If the road overseer has neither money nor labor enough left to grade the street, then let the city take the matter in hand, get what volunteer work they can, and issue city scrip for the remainder. Many workmen in town are now out of employment and it would be a relief to them to have work to do whereby they could obtain the necessaries of life. Gentlemen, let us do something in this matter. The case is serious and will admit of no tomfoolery.

Winfield Courier, December 24, 1874.

J. G. Titus furnishes the county wood at $4.00 per cord in scrip.

[COUNTY BONDS.]

Winfield Courier, February 4, 1875.

                                          THE COUNTY BOND QUESTION.

Quite a respectable show is being made by those who favor issuing county bonds to take up the outstanding scrip of Cowley County. The county commissioners have asked for the passage of a special law on the subject, notwithstanding there is a general law whereby they can issue bonds by first submitting the question to a vote of the people. The county council P. of H., is said to have passed a resolution to the same effect. Some of the county newspapers are in favor of it, although the publishers thereof made political capital against Capt. McDermott a little over one year ago because he procured the passage of a law allowing the bonding of said debt. As for us, without discussing the economi­cal features of the proposition, we still hold that a majority of the people of the county are opposed to bonding the county for any purpose. And as long as that is the sentiment of the majority, we shall not favor any bond proposition unless it be first submitted to a vote of the taxpayers. We cannot advise any short cut to defeat an expression of the sense of the people. When the question is submitted in proper form, we shall have something to say on its merits. Perhaps the constitutionality of a law issuing bonds by a special act when there is a general law that is applicable, is worth a little consideration.

Not sure about next...seems to pertain to schools only...

[EDITORIAL.]

Winfield Courier, February 4, 1875.

                                       GO SLOW, MR. REPRESENTATIVE.

A proposition is before the legislature to issue $95,000 worth of state bonds, said bonds to be sold for not less than ninety-five cents on the dollar, and the money thus obtained is to be used in furnishing food and seed for the destitute in certain parts of the state. This is opposed by members from the eastern and taxpaying portion of the state. An amendment was voted down that required a pro rata distribution among the destitute in every part of the state. This should have been allowed; and in this way, the bill should pass.


Our warning to “go slow,” is addressed to those members who are favoring a substitute for the above mentioned bill, which substitute proposes to sell the bonds belonging to the permanent school fund of the state, and then to invest said permanent school fund in county relief bonds. To make this matter more clear, we will state the whole case. Every 16th and 36th section of land in the state is given by the general government to Kansas for the support of its common schools. This land is sold and the money invested in bonds. The interest on the bonds is divided among the school districts of the state per scholar. The princi­pal remains a sacred fund that cannot be diminished. It happens that over three hundred thousand dollars of this school fund is invested in Kansas state bonds, which are good, and the interest upon which is regularly paid. Now it is proposed by some members of the legislature to sell these state bonds and authorize the destitute counties to issue relief bonds which shall be purchased with this school money. We most solemnly protest against any such investment of our school money. The bonds of some of those western counties are not worth a farthing. Some of them are already overburdened with debt. They are liable to be depopulat­ed any day by a hurricane, hailstorm, drouth, or grasshoppers. Already several thousand dollars of the state school fund is invested in school district bonds issued in said counties, which investment is a dead loss. School districts No.’s 2 and 3 of Comanche County have each issued one thousand dollars in bonds which were purchased by said state school fund, but no one lives in Comanche County nor ever did. These bonds might be given to the destitute of Hutchinson, where the fraud originated. Bonds have been issued in those barren counties for railroads, courthouses, bridges, schoolhouses, outstanding indebtedness, and other purposes. It is the bond voters paradise. There is no limit to their ability to issue, but they should never find a market with the commissioners of the permanent school fund of the state.

Winfield Courier, September 9, 1875.

Scrip ran up to 85 and 90 cents on the dollar Monday, all on account of the demand for tax paying “wherewith.”

Winfield Courier, December 2, 1875.

                                                        WOOD WANTED.

The undersigned will receive written proposals for bids for furnishing Forty Cords of wood for the County until December 10th, 1875. The wood to be mixed green and dry, and delivered at the Courthouse in Winfield as needed, and payment made in Cowley County scrip. R. L. WALKER, Sheriff.

Dec. 1, 1875.

Arkansas City Traveler, May 16, 1877.

COUNTY SCRIPT is at par, and there is $5,000 [? $3,000 ?] in the county treasury.

Winfield Courier, October 25, 1877. M. G. TROUP.

The announcement of this gentleman as an independent candidate for County Clerk deserves more comment. Four years ago he was nominated by the Republican party of this county for that office, and the Republicans stood by him and elected him; not because they knew anything about him but because their convention had endorsed him.

In Tisdale, his own township, where he was best known, a township largely Republican, his opponent received a majority of the votes cast. No other candidate who was before the convention that nominated Mr. Troup had the bad faith to run against him after being defeated in the convention. On the contrary, like honorable men, they accepted the decision of the convention and supported Mr. Troup. Again two years ago he was nominated by the Republicans and no one bolted the nomination to run independent.

Now the Republican convention has in its wisdom nominated Capt. J. S. Hunt for that office, and Mr. Troup says their action “does not represent the wishes of my party.” He assumes by his action that any convention which nominates Mr. Troup is wise, and that any that nominates anyone else for the office does not represent the wishes of his party. His party is only satisfied when it nominates him.


In the COURIER for Sept. 18th is found side by side the announcements of M. G. Troup and J. S. Hunt as candidates for the office of County Clerk before the Republican convention. Both were well known to be candidates all over the county, both canvassed to a considerable extent, and the primaries were held more with reference to the claims of those two candidates than of any others save those for Sheriff, and were more fully attended than ever before; no set of delegates ever before so nearly expressed the will of their constituents, and when the convention assembled, Mr. Troup was there busy canvassing the delegates.

It was there ascertained that a great majority of them were for Capt. Hunt, a fact that Mr. Troup fully realized by his withdrawal, and Capt. Hunt was nominated without dissent. Never was a fairer nomination nor one which gave more general satisfaction to the party.

The people do not know that there is anything wrong about the Clerk’s office. They hope that the incumbent has done his duty well, but they well know that there is opportunity for many frauds in that office, and many neglects of duty which would not be detected until a change of officers. They know that nearly all the astounding frauds that have been unearthed, have been perpetrated by persons who were considered above suspicion; who not having been scrutinized on account of the confidence reposed in them, have been tempted into small peculations which have grown with years into enormous embezzlements and other frauds. They know that in the office of County Clerk there are fees to collect and credit to the county; that there are large amounts of stationery and expensive books to be bought for the county, on which a high price is sometimes paid the seller, who in turn pays back the officer a high commission; that there are large amounts of county scrip to control and handle, that considerable sums of scrip are made and signed, ready for delivery, which are never called for, and should be cancelled and destroyed after three years; that there are the accounts of other officers to be kept straight; that the errors and frauds of county officers are usually only detected when there is a change of County Clerks; that County Attorney McDermott discovered last winter a $2,500 error in the late Treasurer’s account which the County Clerk had for three years failed to detect; and that four consecutive years is as long as any person should ever hold that responsible position.

The late convention did well to decide upon a change. It expressed the wishes of nearly all the voters of the county if we may judge from the expression we hear. It did well in nominating Capt. J. S. Hunt, a man who is in every respect the peer of the present incumbent; a man whose whole record shows that he will thoroughly overhaul the past operations, and discover if anything is wrong; and Republicans will, we doubt not, vote for him almost unanimously, while the Democrats who prefer the good of the county rather than the damaging of the Republican party will also support him.

Winfield Courier, August 29, 1878.

Below we give the financial plank in the platform adopted by the Republicans in the second congressional district.


“That experience having shown that the U. S. notes, commonly called Greenbacks, originally issued by a Republic administration during the war, are admirably adapted to all the purposes of a permanent paper circulation, we hereby declare ourselves in favor of retiring the notes of the national banks, and in making the greenback currency the sole paper currency of the country, and demand that it be issued in sufficient volume to fully accommodate all the wants of business, without depreciation in value, and that they be made receivable for all debts and dues, whether public or private.

“That we denounce the proposed issue of irredeemable fiat scrip, as a departure from the original and true greenback doctrine, as a measure of undisguised repudiation of solemn contracts and obligations, and as sure to result, if carried out, in universal bankruptcy and the total ruin of the producing classes.”

Winfield Courier, October 3, 1878.

A. B. Steinberger, of the Howard Courant-Ledger, called on us last Tuesday. He runs a live Republican paper and is doing a good work for Elk County. He says the Greenback labor party men of his county go for absolute fiat irredeemable scrip to the amount of the national debt, and do not mince matters as they do here.

Winfield Courier, October 31, 1878.

                                               WINFIELD, October 28, 1878.

EDITOR COURIER: Allison, in his paper of last week, devotes some space to me as the Republican candidate for county attorney, and closes by asking me five questions. I have furnished him brief answers to these questions for his paper this week, but lest he may adhere to the tactics he has started out on, and not publish my answers, I ask the privilege of a hearing through your columns.

Allison’s hostility toward me has been of long standing, growing out of the fact that he failed to get the county printing from the county board when I was county attorney. He claimed that my advice to the board concerning the law was what defeated him. When he says that he made attacks upon me through his paper before he made a bid for the county printing, he states an untruth.

Every unprejudiced person who attended the late Greenback county convention and heard Allison’s harangues there in relation to whom he wanted for county attorney will be satisfied that his grudge toward me arose out of the matter of county printing. His imputation that I have been trying to patch up my official record in advance of his charges is a fitting innuendo from his libelous pen, since, from the moment of my nomination, he has been busy retailing false charges against me.

The first three questions he asks he puts in the form of charges against me at a meeting at New Salem, and when Mr. Asp, who was present, asked him if he had any more charges to make against me, and if so, to make them then so that I could reply before the election, Allison said he had, but did not propose to exhibit his powder and shot in advance. He closes the article in his paper with the statement that when these questions are answered he shall propound more in next week’s issue, well knowing that it will be impossible for me to reply to them before the election.

Unless Allison is a true exponent of his party, which I do not believe, his manner of conducting the campaign against me will not be approved by his party, and will be considered worse than bush-whacking by every fair minded person.

And now I will answer his questions in their order.


1st. I was not guilty of a back salary grab in 1872 or in any other year, nor did I ever receive a cent from the county that I was not justly and legally entitled to. I was county attorney from January 1871 to January 1875. Under the law the county board had to fix the salary of county attorney, the amount depending upon the population of the county on the first of March of each year, to be ascertained by the returns of the township assessors, to be made by July 1st, and the board could not legally determine the population until their July session. The board at their July session in July, 1871, fixed the salary of county attorney for that year at $450, and I received that amount in the scrip of the county. At the July session for 1872 the population was such that the county board legally fixed the salary for that year at $1,000, and I received that amount in county scrip worth sixty to seventy cents on the dollar.

2nd. The only part which I had in the allowance of a salary to T. H. Johnson, Probate Judge, was to advise the board that it was in their discretion whether to allow him a salary at all or not, and that in any extent it could not exceed $500. That opinion was correct. The board did allow $500, and this violated no law.

3rd. In relation to the road damages allowed Mr. Johnson, all I had to do with it was to advise the board that it should allow such damages as were just and reasonable.

4th. I never advised the Board of County Commissioners in 1873, or at any other time, that it had a right to grant a whiskey license on the same petition upon which a license had been granted the year before, and, having never given such advice, I of course never received any money on account of such advice; nor did I ever receive, nor was I ever offered, a cent, or any sum of money or valuable thing, to do or forbear to do any official act during the four years that I was county attorney.

5th. John B. Fairbank, A. H. Green, and myself at one time were associated together in the civil practice of the law only. During that time I prosecuted a man by the name of James Stewart on the charge of being implicated in the shooting of a deputy U. S. Marshal on Grouse Creek. Stewart was defended in court by W. P. Hackney and Messrs. Putman & Case, of Topeka, and Mr. Green was in some way connected with the defense, but did not take any active part in the trial of the case. Whether Mr. Green offered Stewart any such inducement to secure his employment as Mr. Allison insinuates, I have no personal knowledge, nor do I care. Mr. Green says he did not, which settles the question in my mind that Mr. Allison lies on that score. This much I do know, that, although Stewart was defended by as good lawyers as the State afforded, the only favor I showed him was to procure his conviction and have him sentenced to the state penitentiary.

I have been informed that Mr. Allison, at a meeting at Beek’s schoolhouse, in Ninnescah Township, on last Saturday night, said that I had been given a yoke of cattle for loosely prosecuting a case in Beaver Township in which two men had been arrested on a charge of bringing Texas cattle into that township. That charge is absolutely false.


Mr. E. B. Johnson was the prosecuting witness in that case. I told Mr. Johnson after he had these men arrested and before the commencement of the trial before the justice of the peace that I believed the statute under which they were held was in contravention of the constitution of the United States, and that they would finally be discharged on that account. Mr. Johnson insisted however on testing that question, and as the county could in no event be liable for the costs, I proceeded with the trial before the justice and a jury. One of the defendants was acquitted because proof could not be obtained that he had any connection with bringing the cattle into the county. The other was convicted and he appealed to the district court, and was there discharged on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional.

It is perhaps a matter of general information that a short time ago the Supreme Court of the United States decided that a similar statute of the State of Missouri conflicted with the constitution of the United States, and on that account was null and void.

These comprise the batch of lies that Mr. Allison, so far as I am advised, has thus far charged against me in this campaign. If he didn’t lie in the last week’s issue of his paper, he intends to publish a new string of falsehoods in the last issue of his paper before the day of election.

In conclusion I have to say that any charges he may make affecting my honesty or integrity as county attorney of this county will be absolutely false; that whatever my ability may have been when acting as county attorney, I honestly and conscientiously endeavored to discharge the duties that the office devolved upon me. E. S. TORRANCE.

Again...pertains to schools.

Winfield Courier, December 26, 1878.

Written for the COURIER.

                                                        Our School Building.

By your leave, Mr. Editor, I would like to ask the people of this community some questions. What are you going to do about your schools for next year? Last year an effort was made about this time, or a little later, to have the district vote bonds to build a new schoolhouse. It was clearly to be seen then the increase of population would demand increased accommodation for our schools. But there was exhibited quite a disinclination to vote bonds and so the project fell through. The people were satisfied to trust to luck for something to turn up by which we could get through this year. Things were allowed to drift until the annual school meeting, when the district found itself compelled to build a temporary barracks for two departments, which answers the purpose very well, but which cost 15 percent more than it ought to have done, and is besides an eye-sore to the community. The additional cost arose from the necessity of the school boards issuing scrip which could not be paid at once, and which had to be discounted.

Our schools are first-class in every respect, and the question is, Shall we provide them with suitable accommodations? It was thought at the school meeting that when we had provided for 350 pupils and employed two additional teachers, we had made ample provision for our wants this year. But the enrollment already exceeds that number and some of the departments are becoming crowded, and before the year is up some teachers will have more pupils than they can do justice to.

Next year it will be necessary to provide for at least 450 pupils if Winfield maintains anything like her present rate of growth. At an average of 50 pupils to the teacher, this would require nine school rooms and as many teachers. Now is the time to settle this question. What do we propose to do about it? Being in the same predicament as the old woman who lived in a shoe, we can’t settle it in the way she did; we are not able to put them all to bed—we must put them in schools, for so the law requires. If we leave the question unsettled until the next school meeting, we will be compelled to act in the same way we have done this year—put up another temporary building. There are three ways in which we may solve the difficulty.


1st. By dividing the pupils in each of the three lower grades into two divisions and allowing to attend only half a day, one division going in the forenoon and one in the afternoon, we could possibly get along with our present rooms.

2nd. By commencing immediately, we could vote $7,000 to $10,000 in bonds and erect a building in connection with our stone schoolhouse, which would give us ample room for our schools. No time must be lost, however, if we wish to secure this building for next fall term.

3rd. The only other alternative is to vote bonds sufficient to build another frame building of about three rooms. A great many would say at once, “I will never vote bonds to build anything but a good schoolhouse.” But we had better determine on something definite at once, even to the voting of bonds for a frame building rather than to let this matter go by default and compel the board to issue depreciated scrip to force a building up in the short time between the school meeting in August and the fall term in September. I have not thought worthwhile to suggest that we might neglect the schools and provide for them in any way. I have taken it for granted that this community will not tolerate this idea. The question now before us is, “Shall we build a schoolhouse worthy of the place? CITIZEN.

Winfield Courier, December 26, 1878.

                                                         The Bonds Carried!

                                                 BY A ROUND MAJORITY.

                                                       COWLEY COUNTY

       On the Through Route From Indigence to Wealth, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific!

                                              The Speedy Construction Assured.

Notwithstanding the coldness of the weather on Tuesday, the proposition to vote $141,000 of the bonds of this county to the Cowley, Sumner & Fort Smith Railway Company was carried by a large majority. We have not yet got full returns, but the townships heard from give so large majorities for, as to place the result beyond a doubt. We congratulate the people of Cowley County on this auspicious result and predict that one year from today those who have opposed this proposition will be ready to admit that we were right and thank us for the position we have taken.

The vote of Winfield stands 873 for, 5 against, and 6 scattering.

Reports in:

Winfield, 868 majority for.

Creswell, 300 majority for.

Beaver, 86 majority for.

Vernon, 60 majority for.

Ninnescah, 3 majority for.

Bolton, 80 majority for.

Tisdale, 20 majority for.

Sheridan, 34 majority for.

Pleasant Valley, 48 majority for.

Rock, 88 majority against.

Liberty, 7 majority against.

Dexter, 19 majority against.


Windsor, 106 majority against.

Richland, 48 majority against.

Silver Creek, 74 majority against.

Maple, 35 majority against.

It is now evident that the vote of Winfield Township might be thrown out and not counted and still the bonds would be carried.

Important Article...

 [WHAT THE COURTHOUSE COST.]

Winfield Courier, May 29, 1879.

We clip the following from the Traveler of last week.

“The question whether we shall put up for repairs on the courthouse will soon be presented to the County Commissioners for their decision. Five years ago this same courthouse was con­structed at a cost to the taxpayers of thirty one thousand dollars. Has this debt against the county yet been payed? We think not.”

Now we shall charitably assume that the editor meant to tell the truth in the above, but was not posted up in the matter. We have been to the record in the office of the county clerk to examine, and find that the exact cost of the courthouse when built and completed about five years ago was $10,600.66. It has usually been stated at $10,000 as the appoximate cost. It was paid for in county scrip at par, and that scrip has since been paid off and canceled. We will not say that the county owes nothing as the result of building the courthouse. About $30,000 of bonds were issued to fund the outstanding county scrip, a part of which was that issued for the courthouse. These bonds have not been paid and therefore it is fair to say that the county owes $10,600.66 of bonded debt incurred in consequence of build­ing the court-house. State the thing as it is, neighbor.

Arkansas City Traveler, October 29, 1879.

                                               Township Treasurer’s Report.

To cash received of W. E. Gooch $113.80

To amount received of County Treasurer $1,301.94

To cash received for sale of house $25.00

Total: $1,170.74

By amount paid on Scrip issued by W. W. Berkey $1.00

By amount paid on Scrip issued by H. Chamberlain $181.15

By amount paid on Scrip issued by T. McIntire $415.16

By amount paid on Scrip issued by Jas. L. Huey $195.52

By amount paid on Scrip issued by A. Walton $366.72

Total: $1,159.55

Balance on hand October 28, 1879 $11.19

                                                    S. B. ADAMS, Treasurer.

[COMMUNICATION FROM “S. E. B.” RE BRIDGE BONDS, ETC.]

Winfield Courier, Thursday, December 25, 1879. Front Page.

                                                      COMMUNICATED.

                                             WALNUT TWP., DEC. 20, 1879.


EDITOR COURIER: In your issue of the 11th inst., under the head of “Bridge Bonds,” you say things that are liable to mis­lead, and with your permission I will give all the facts in the case so far as I known them, and I was connected with the move­ment from first to last, and ought to know the motives which actuated those whom you are pleased to call “timid citizens.”

The reasons for our actions are as follows.

1. Winfield township had built four bridges, issuing bonds and scrip to the amount of $25,000: $5,000 of which was scrip or township orders. (This is not claimed to be the exact amounts, but near enough to illustrate.)

2. Winfield City became a city of the second class, and by the law none but the real estate within the corporate limits of the city could be directly held for the indebtedness of Winfield township, thus leaving all that class of indebtedness known as scrip to be raised by the remainder of the township—say about $5,000—and assuming that the real estate in the township and the real estate in the city were equal, then the taxpayer in the township would have to pay in addition a tax on his personal property which would make the taxes relatively about as follows.

A, being a citizen of the city, would pay on his real estate $1.00, and on his personal property, $0.00.

B, living in the township, would pay on his real estate $1.00, and on his personal property, $1.00. In addition thereto, B would pay 25 or 50 cents on his real property and 25 cents on his personal property for the purpose of liquidating the $5,000 of township orders.

Thus, they would stand:

A. bond tax: $1.00

B. bond tax: $2.00

B. order tax: $.50

These sums are only approximately correct and would vary only as the relative ratio of the different classes of property within the two corporations varied at the time the proper authorities apportioned the debt to each.

3. There were four bridges to maintain at an annual cost, taking 1878 as a criterion, of about $800, for the use of the whole county. It was useless to think of trying the county for assistance; the township had lost half or more of its taxable property, and was saddled with a heavy bonded debt and a large floating debt—what could we do but as we did? Here was Vernon township on the west, with a large area of the best agricultural land in the state, and filled with an intelligent, go-ahead class of people that were, per force of location, compelled to use two of these four bridges all the year round. The same remarks are applicable to Pleasant Valley on the south with reference to one of the bridges, except that Pleasant Valley accepted the present of a new bridge with the best possible grace, while Vernon did not seem to appreciate the munificence of the donors in allotting two and a large additional territory to her domain.


4. After having made up our minds, the “coterie” went to work, got up a petition in legal form, made copies, and gave them to friends of the project. The petitions were duly circu-lated, and at the next meeting of the County Commissioners they were presented, and after laying the situation before that honorable body, they saw fit to grant the petition, and created a new township, giving two of the bridges to Vernon, which township by virtue of use ought to by right be compelled to maintain them, one to Pleasant Valley, and leaving one to the new township; thus dividing the cost of maintaining the four bridges among the three townships most interested in their use.

And now, as this article is already too long, I will close with a word as to the manner of circulating those petitions, as that seems to be a great “eye sore.” Those who had charge of the project acted upon the principle that you only receive help from friends, and that enemies are at liberty to get all the informa­tion they can. This is a world in which all work for their own interests as they understand them, and neither do they publish all their projects broad-cast, but having made up their minds that a certain action is just and would result in bettering their condition, they set about to accomplish it in a legal (if you please) way, and he who says least does most. S. E. B.

[ACTIVITIES OF CRESWELL TOWNSHIP IN THE YEAR 1879.]

Arkansas City Traveler, February 11, 1880. Editorial Page.

                                  An Exhibit of the Transactions of the Board of

                                         Creswell Township for the Year 1879.

To the Citizens of Creswell Township:

Your township officers having completed their duties for the past year, and having been relieved from further service deem it their duty to make a full and complete report of the state of your township at the time they entered upon the duties assigned them, and also the status at the expiration of their term of office.

The debt of the township at the time we entered the office was in bonds as follows:

Bonds for building Walnut River bridge, $5,000.

Bonds for building Arkansas River bridge, $7,500.

In scrip as follows:

Issue of Chamberlain:  $  171.00

Issue of T. McIntire:    1,724.00

Issue of Jas. L. Huey:      406.71

Total:              $2,301.71

Having published a statement of the indebtedness of Creswell Township after our first meeting, we had reason to expect that the public would want to know in what manner the debts were contracted, and whether public officers had a right to create debts to such an amount, and involve the township for years to come.

The debts were created in the usual manner for the require­ments of the township up to the election of Mr. T. McIntire. We give the following figures in regard to the amount of debt created during that administration.

$1,955 was issued for building a bridge across the Walnut River at Newman’s mill, and on the approaches thereto as follows:

To the Missouri Valley Bridge Company, 4 orders, $50 each, 200; 4 orders, $125 each, $500, due in one year; 4 orders, $700, due in two years.

Same company, payable out of delinquent road tax fund, 3 orders, amount $100.

Same company, payable out of same fund, 7 orders, amount $275.

To A. A. Newman, for extra work on Walnut River pier, 7 orders, $100.

To Cap. Nipp for filling approach on the east to the Walnut River bridge, $50.


To A. A. Newman, extra work on the Walnut River bridge, $5.

To Cap. Nipp, filling approach to Walnut River bridge, $25.

In regard to the building of the Walnut River bridge, the facts are that a vote was taken for the purpose of issuing bonds to build a bridge over the Walnut River, at Newman’s mill. The vote carried, but it was discovered by the parties interested that the township could not legally issue over $500 in bonds. The contract which had been previously made to build a bridge was then changed so as to pay $500 in bonds and the balance in township orders, and said change recorded in township books. The township board taking the vote on bonds as authority to them to build a bridge, certain parties agreeing to take part of the orders at par for cash of the Bridge Company.

The present board finding these transactions on the books deemed the last contract entirely illegal; that the township board had no right whatever to make such a contract, or to bind the citizens in payment of such contract, or to issue any town­ship orders in payment of such a debt so contracted, and believ­ing that the parties knew such a contract and payment in orders to be illegal from the fact that they made a previous legal contract in the manner prescribed by law for the purpose named.

In view of these facts the present board considered it their duty to refuse payment of this scrip until it was made a legal debt under a decision of law.

It having been confidently assert­ed that our action was repudi­ation, and morally wrong, we are perfectly willing to leave it with the citizens of the township to say whether the parties who knowingly, and because it suited their own purpose, entered into an illegal contract, or the parties who have sworn to do their duty and to pay only legal debts, are most in the wrong.

Report for the past year as follows:

Amount of scrip issued by board, A. Walton, trustee, $864.32.

Scrip paid off as follows:

Issue of A. W. Berkey, Principal $4.15; Interest $.80. Total: $4.95.

Issue of Chamberlain, Principal $170.00, Interest $35.55. Total: $205.55.

Issue of T. McIntire, Principal $404.20, Interest $38.11. Total: $442.31.

Issue of Jas. L. Huey, Principal $387.21, Interest $21.03. Total: $408.24.

Issue of Amos Walton, $864.32, all paid.

There was a portion of indebtedness, acquired under Chamber­lain, not fully shown in the books and interest on bonds not figured. With these exceptions we have made a fair exhibit of the books paying every dollar of indebtedness created by our­selves and $1,060.95, made by others. By order of the board. A. WALTON, Trustee. R. J. MAXWELL, Clerk.

Arkansas City Traveler, February 18, 1880.

                                               Township Treasurer’s Report.

Mr. Editor: My term of office as Township Treasurer having expired, I deem it my duty to make a full statement of all the business transacted by me during my term of office, which is as follows:

Cash received of W. E. Gooch, former Treasurer: $113.86

Cash and vouchers received of T. R. Bryant, County Treasurer: $1.772.65

     Cash received of A. Walton on sale of house: $48.85


Total amount received: $1,935.36

Cash paid on scrip issued by Berkey: $4.15, Interest on same: $.80

Total: $4.95

Cash paid on scrip issued by Chamberlain: $170.00, Interest on same, $35.55

Total: $205.55

Cash paid on scrip issued by T. McIntire: $404.20, Interest on same, $38.11

Total: $442.31

Cash paid on scrip issued by J. L. Huey: $397.21, Interest on same, $20.93

Total: $418.14

Cash paid on scrip issued by A. Walton: $858.44, Interest on same, $1.90

Total: $860.34

TOTAL AMOUNT PAID OUT: $1,931.29

BALANCE NOW ON HAND: $4.07

As there has been a great deal said about repudiation and my refusing to pay certain scrip issued to the Missouri Valley Bridge Company, now in answer to which I will say if my refusing to pay said scrip for the lack of funds is repudiation, then I will have to plead guilty to the charge. The record will show that there has never been any levy made for the payment of said scrip; therefore, I deemed it to be my duty to pay the debts for which the levy was made, and have paid all the debts contracted by said Board amounting to the sum of $860.34 as follows:

$230.40 for material and work done on the Arkansas River Bridge.

$154.74 for material and work done on the Walnut River Bridge.

$475.20 for the incidental expense of the Township.

$1,070.95 for scrip issued by former Trustees that remained unpaid, including $428.16 issued to the Missouri Valley Bridge Company.

All of this is cheerfully submitted for the consideration of the taxpayers of Creswell Township, Cowley County, Kansas. S. B. ADAMS, Treasurer.

February 16, 1880.

Arkansas City Traveler, March 24, 1880.

                                                        CASH ACCOUNT.

Amount of cash received by the City Clerk since March 15th, 1879, to March 14th, 1880, both inclusive.

[Skipped most of this item....MAW 10/1999]

GRAND TOTAL FOR 1879 AND 1880: $755.95

By cash paid to City Treasurer from March 15th, 1879, to March 14th, 1880, both inclusive, for which I hold his receipts:      $753.95

Cash on hand to balance:                      2.00

TOTAL:                             $755.95

Amount of Scrip issued by City Clerk from March 15th, 1879, to March 14th, 1880, both inclusive:

March 17: To railroad committee expense to Topeka: $60.00

March 17: Gardner Mott, hauling stone for Walker’s well: $4.75

March 20: D. B. Hartsock, repairing Walker’s well: $35.00


March 22: Mrs. Finney, for lumber used at Walker’s well.

March 22: James Morgan, salary as City Marshal, Feb. ‘79: $10.00

March 28: I. H. Bonsall, six months salary as City Clerk, room rent, light and fuel for     council meeting: $25.00

March 29: John M. Hollaway, plow beam broken while in use by city: $2.50

March 29: John M. Hollaway, hauling dead horse off of town site: $1.25

March 31: James Morgan, salary as City Marshal, March, 1879: $10.00

April 11: J. P. Eckel, services as judge of city election: $2.00

April 14: Amos Walton, services as judge of city election: $2.00

April 14: W. J. Gray, services as judge of city election: $2.00

April 14: J. W. Griffith, services as clerk of city election: $2.00

May 6: D. B. Hartsock, for concreting Walker’s well: $10.00

May 6: James Morgan, salary as City Marshal, April, 1879: $10.00

May 30: John Hoenscheidt, civil engineer, surveying and grading streets: $25.00

June 3: W. R. Scott, board bill for surveying while grading streets: $7.00

June 3: Speers & Mantor, rope for Walker’s well: $.60

June 3: D. Berger, repairing scraper: $5.60

June 3: E. R. Thompson, lumber for dump wagons: $8.17

June 3: I. H. Bonsall, for 3 days assisting surveyor: $6.00

June 3: Gardner Mott, 21 days as street commissioner: $31.60

June 3: Gardner Mott, boarding prisoner: $.40

June 3: Gardner Mott, 2-1/2 days work on streets, by J. Rose: $2.50

June 3: Gardner Mott, 1 month’s salary as City Marshal: $10.00

June 3: James Christian, room rent and fees as Police Judge: $9.05

June 3: W. J. Gray, fees as City Marshal, 1878: $8.50

June 3: James Morgan, fees from Police Docket: $2.10

June 4: To R. C. Haywood for tax to clear title: $47.15

June 6: Erwin French, work on streets: $1.00

June 10: C. M. Scott, stationery for city: $2.51

June 16: Gardner Mott, 6 days as street commissioner: $9.00

June 21: A. C. Brunaham, for work on streets: $5.00

June 26: Hughes & McIntire, Traveler, printing Ordinance: $2.00

July 2: John M. Hollaway, cleaning well: $3.00

July 9: W. J. Gray, special City Marshal, 4th of July: $1.50

July 10: Gardner Mott, for work on streets 12-1/2 days: $20.75

July 10: Gardner Mott, for work on street by Rose ½ day with team: $1.00

July 16: Gardner Mott, salary months of June and July: $10.00

July 16: Gardner Mott, 1-1/2 days work on streets: $2.25

July 18: W. H. Speers, flour for Mrs. Tush: $1.25

July 25: Mrs. Tierick, nursing Mrs. Tush: $3.00

July 26: Miss Alice Walton, nursing Mrs. Tush: $2.00

Aug. 12: K. F. Smith, black smithing for public wells: $3.60

Aug. 12: J. A. Stafford, meat furnished Mrs. Tush: $1.00


Aug. 12: R. E. Fitzpatrick, cleaning Stanton’s well: $3.00

Aug. 12: R. E. Fitzpatrick, cleaning J. E. Williams’ well: $11.50

Aug. 13: Thos. Collins, work on streets: $2.00

Aug. 13: Gardner Mott, work on streets: $5.25

Aug. 30: L. Knight, legal services: $6.00

Sept. 1: J. D. Rogers, taxes to clear title: $24.25

Sept. 2: Hughes & Gray, Traveler, city printing: $9.50

Sept. 2: I. H. Bonsall, council room rent, lights, fuel,

 and six months services as City Clerk: $25.00

Sept. 2: Gardner Mott, street commissioner: $7.50

Sept. 16: Schiffbauer Bros., merchandise: $6.30

Sept. 19: Mantor & Blakeney: $.30

Sept. 22: D. B. Hartsock, on account of salary as City Marshal: $5.00

Oct. 14: Speers & Mantor, groceries for Mrs. Tush: $1.00

Oct. 24: D. B. Hartsock, on account of salary as City Marshal: $50.00

Oct. 25: E. R. Thompson, lumber for sidewalks: $17.28

Nov. 5: D. Berger, repairing scraper: $3.25

Nov. 5: Louis Dolittle, work on streets: $1.00

Nov. 7: A. Walton, road tax return list: $3.00

Nov. 10: Gardner Mott, as street commissioner: $25.00

Nov. 10: Geo. Russell, 1-1/2 days with team on streets: $3.00

Nov. 13: B. B. Hartsock, bal. on salary to Nov. 12th: $45.00

Nov. 24: Gardner Mott, cleaning out well: $2.00

Dec. 4: K. F. Smith, blacksmith work on calaboose: $2.00

Dec. 15: D. B. Hartsock, City Marshal to Dec. 12, 1879: $25.00

Dec. 19: J. W. Hutchison, work on streets: $3.00

Dec. 19: A. A. Newman, stone for Walker’s well: $2.60

Dec. 20: D. B. Hartsock, on account grading Central Avenue: $50.00

1880.

Jan. 8: A. Wilson, blankets for calaboose: $6.00

Jan. 12: W. K. Jacobs, lumber for pauper grave: $.50

Jan. 14: Wm. Parmer, nursing pauper and washing corpse: $5.00

Jan. 15: Honn & Skipper, digging pauper graves: $3.00

Jan. 15: Thompson & Channell, lumber for street crossings: $21.61

Jan. 16: Chas. U. France, boarding sick pauper: $59.00

Jan. 19: D. B. Hartsock, City Marshal to Jan 21, 1880: $25.00

Jan. 22: Gardner Mott, work with team as street commissioner: $10.60

Jan. 26: D. B. Hartsock, grading Central Avenue, balance in full: $50.00

Jan. 29: D. B. Hartsock, chain for well: $.50

Feb. 6: Peter Pearson, bal. due on coffin, James Morgan, City Marshal: $4.75

Feb. 6: Geo. Russell, burying pauper: $1.50

Feb. 6: J. P. Eckel, work on Street crossing: $1.50

Feb. 13: A. T. Green, work on Street crossing: $1.60


March 1: C. McIntire, city printing: $12.50

March 2: C. McIntire, city printing, $5.25

March 3: Howard, Rexford & Howard, merchandise: $4.89

March 6: L. P. Stanton, clerk of bond election, Feb. 24, 1880: $2.00

March 6: M. Stanton, Judge of bond election, Feb. 24, 1880: $2.00

March 10: Gardner Mott, Judge of bond election, Feb. 24, 1880: $2.00

                                                           TOTAL: $980.56

                                                  I. H. BONSALL, City Clerk.

[REPORT OF CITY TREASURER.]

Arkansas City Traveler, June 30, 1880.

                                       Report of City Treasurer for the Month

                                                      Ending June 21, 1880.

Received from Co. Treasurer Bryan—

City Tax: $466.20, Sidewalk Tax: $43.50. Total: $509.70

Received from City Treasurer Sleeth, 1879 balance: $772.59

Received from Sanford, balance on license: $100.00

From sale of bonds: $4,600.00

From A. Chapel, Mayor, on license: $6.00

From A. Walton, license: $3.00

Total: $5,991.29

By City Scrip issued for trade and commerce: $4,576.97

BALANCE IN TREASURY: $1,414.32   H. P. FARRAR, Treasurer.

Arkansas City Traveler, April 20, 1881.

                                                       MONITOR ITEMS.

Winfield is out of debt and has money in its treasury; while Wellington has outstanding scrip in the amount of $6,658.39 and a bankrupt treasury.

Winfield Courier, November 3, 1881.

One W. P. Carpenter is bringing suit against the territory comprising old Winfield township for the payment of some $3,000 scrip which was left outstanding when the township went out of existence. It seems as if there ought to be some way to fix this matter without going to law about it.

Cowley County Courant, November 24, 1881.

Walnut, Vernon, and the other townships outside of the city in old Winfield Township, have employed H. C. Sims, of Wichita, to look after their interests in the suit brought in the U. S. Court by the King Bridge company. The company has about $2,500 in scrip which was issued to pay for building the approaches to the south bridge. If necessary, City Attorney Seward will act for the city in the case. In our judgment the above suit should be added to the series of blunders committed in blotting out the old township, and the whole matter should be settled and paid with as little cost as possible.

[BRIDGE SUITS.]

Winfield Courier, December 8, 1881.


The King Iron Bridge Co. has sued the townships of Vernon, Pleasant Valley, and Walnut, and the City of Winfield in the United States Circuit Court for the sum of $1,879.67 and inter­est, on five township orders of the old Winfield Township, all issued for building the approaches to the South bridge April 10, 1879, except $330.00, Dec. 31, 1878, for iron bridges. Rossington, Johnston & Smith of Topeka are attorneys for the plaintiff. The petition asks for the appointment of a master in chancery who shall take proof of the territorial extent and taxable property of the parts of the old Winfield Township now in each of the defendant limits and apportion the indebtedness to each, and that an order issue that each of the defendant munici­palities pay their proportion immediately. This is in addition to the suit of Carpenter brought by M. G. Troup in the district court of this county for the payment of $2,036.10 of bridge scrip of Winfield Township and interest from October 15, 1881. This is one of the results of bad management in the past in the disrup­tion of Winfield Township. Now there is no other way to pay the indebtedness legally except at the end of a suit in chancery.

Winfield Courier, December 29, 1881.

Mr. E. D. Skinner, trustee of Vernon Township, talked old Winfield bridge scrip with us half an hour Saturday. As Vernon is not very largely interested in the matter, she will let Walnut and Winfield do what fighting there is to be done.

Winfield Courier, December 29, 1881.

A meeting of the officers of Vernon, Pleasant Valley, Fairview, Walnut, and Winfield City was held last Saturday at the Council chamber, and all the townships agreed to pay their pro. rata share toward fighting the cases growing out of the old Winfield Township scrip business.

The Winfield Courier, January 5, 1882.

The officers of the different townships interested in the old Winfield scrip business met at the Courthouse last Friday and apportioned the expenses of fighting the cases as follows: Vernon $15, Pleasant Valley $15, Walnut $30, Fairview $9, Winfield City $186. The valuation of the property of old Winfield Township is $437,854, and is divided as follows: Vernon $21,428; Fairview $12,914; Walnut $115,312; Pleasant Valley $21,613; Winfield City $266,559. [FIGURES DO NOT MATCH WITH TOTAL OF $437,854...AS USUAL, PAPER GOOFED IN GIVING FIGURES!]

The cost of fighting the cases to be $300. Senator Sluss, of Sedgwick, looked the matter up thoroughly and gives a very strong opinion that the scrip was legally issued. Trustees, Becker, of Pleasant Valley; Weimer, of Fairview; Roberts, of Walnut; and clerk Beach, of Winfield, were present and assisted in making the apportionment.

The Winfield Courier, January 12, 1882.

The compositor who set up our statement last week of the opinion delivered by Senator Sluss on the township scrip business had been out New Year’s calling. We said the opinion was that the scrip was not legally issued. The printer left out the “not” and made us say it was legally issued. As this happened during the week of prayer, we do not know whether to excuse the printer on the ground of preoccupation or attribute it to the New Year’s business.

The Winfield Courier, January 19, 1882.

                                                            Township Scrip.


EDS. COURIER: Since there has been so much said about that Winfield township scrip business, I suppose it is about time for me to rise and explain. I will say that I am no repudiator. The very active part I took in disorganizing old Winfield Township was for another purpose. For those who think there is only one side to that scrip business, I will say that the Township Board were full advised by our County Attorney and two of our very best law firms. C. C. PIERCE.

Cowley County Courant, January 12, 1882.

The trustees of townships comprising old Winfield Township have met and apportioned the expense of contesting the payment of the township scrip issued by the officers of the old township for bridge building. The apportionment between the townships based on their property valuation is as follows:

Vernon, $7.35.

Fairview, $4.42.

Walnut, $39.50.

Pleasant Valley, $7.40.

Winfield City, $91.33.

This makes a total of $150.00.

The Courier has stated that the Hon. H. C. Sluss has given a written opinion that the scrip was legally issued. We think the statement of the Courier contained a typographical error, as we saw the written opinion of Mr. Sluss, in which he confidently states that the scrip was not legally issued and that he had no idea that the old territory could be justly held for its payment.

The Courier also misstated in saying that Mr. Sluss demanded $300 for contesting the case. Mr. Sluss has agreed to contest for  $150, three hundred dollars to be paid him if he wins the suit.

Cowley County Courant, January 19, 1882.

STARTS OUT WITH “SQUAN CREEK”...THINK IT SHOULD BE “SWAN CREEK”...BUT I REALLY DO NOT KNOW.

SQUAN CREEK, January 14th, 1882.

ED. COURANT: There has been so much said about the old Winfield Township scrip business, that I, as the township trustee when said scrip was issued, feel called upon to say a word. In the first place, I am no repudiator, the acting part I took in discouraging the old township being for another purpose altogeth­er. The old township board used due caution in all of their actions, and no contracts were made or scrip issued except under and with the advice of, not only the county attorney, but also two of Winfield’s best lawyers. There are two sides to this scrip question, as will be developed in time. C. C. PIERCE.

[EDITORIAL.]

Cowley County Courant, March 2, 1882.

                                                   OLD WINFIELD SCRIP.

We have heard considerable comment among our citizens in relation to the payment of the city’s share of the scrip issued by old Winfield Township, for which the city of Winfield has been sued by the King Bridge Company and by Carpenter and Reed.


The city’s proportion to pay, should the courts decide the debt legal, would be considerable, and the people of this city would certainly wish to know that the debt was lawful before they are called upon to tax themselves for two or three thousand dollars. The city council at a meeting resolved to contest, if all the other townships would join, in testing the legality of this large amount of scrip.

Since then we have learned that Pleasant Valley Township has refused to contest, but we suppose of course, the city council will take steps to protect the interests of the people and see that they pay only such debts as are legal. This scrip has not a very good name, and is thought by many to have been illegally issued.

Though Mayor Troup is attorney for the parties bringing the suit, we suppose he will guard the interests of the people as well as those of his clients, and the citizens of this city will look to him and to the city council for full protection of their rights. If these claims are legal, the city will not hesitate a moment or protest an instant over their payment, but a decision of the courts should certainly be obtained.

Concerns Hunnewell only...

Arkansas City Traveler, February 15, 1882.

Hunnewell will on the 6th day of March, 1882, vote to instruct the city council, of that city, as to the issuance of the bonds of that city in the sum of fifty-eight hundred dollars, to fund the outstanding scrip indebtedness of the city. The council repudiates sixteen thousand dollars at the same meeting, then orders an election of 5,800 more. That’s business if they can make it work. Caldwell Post.

Winfield Courier, February 16, 1882.

Read’s Bank has sued old Winfield Township for $375, old township scrip. Are there any more suits to be brought?

Winfield Courier, March 2, 1882. Editorial.

                                     THOSE WINFIELD TOWNSHIP SUITS.


We wish to brace up our city council in relation to these suits. They are in relation to the debts incurred by the last trustee of the old township, in building the bridges in excess of the amount voted by the people. For this excess township scrip was issued, the legality of which was questioned or denied at the time, and has never yet been decided. Three suits against the territory which comprised the old township are commenced to collect this scrip and the question to be determined by the court is: Is this scrip legal and binding? If so, what existing municipal corporation is liable and in what proportion? And in what way shall the money be raised? The suits already commenced involve the sum of about $5,000. It is necessary that these be defended in order that either of these questions should be properly settled and the interests of the corporations interested be protected and secured on equitable principles. John C. Roberts, trustee of Walnut Township, has been at work in the matter for sometime and has made, with the approval of the other townships and a majority of the city council, complete arrangements for the defense of these suits at a minimum cost. The county clerk has furnished the assessment rolls and a schedule of the proportion of the expense to each municipality is agreed upon. The officers of each township interested have signed a contract to pay their proportion of the expenses. It is doubtless the wish of the citizens that the city council also ratify the contract. It will cost $150 to defend these three cases and it is worth much more than this to learn the legal status of the claims. We cannot afford to let it go by default. This sum is the fee of H. C. Sluss, who has been selected as the counsel for the defense. In case the two principal suits are defeated, the sum will be double. The proportion of the $150, among the municipalities, will be about as follows.

Winfield City, $92; Walnut Township, $37; Pleasant Valley, $7.50; Vernon Township, $7; and Fairview Township, $4.50. The city of Winfield can well afford to stand the $92, and the council should promptly ratify. In case the suits are successful, Winfield City alone will have $3,000 to pay besides its proportion of some further claims which will be prosecuted. She can well afford to pay $92 or twice that sum to have her interest thoroughly looked after. Mr. Roberts has done the work; now let the council stand to and go ahead.

Winfield Courier, March 16, 1882.

From the published proceedings of the council we clip the following: Resolved by the city council that the City of Winfield hereby agrees to pay her proportion of lawyers’ fees that may become due to Sluss and Hatton under existing proposition made by the said Sluss & Hatton for representing said city and the other territory formerly constituting old Winfield Township, against the several suits brought to collect certain scrip issued by the old Winfield Township.

Fraud concerning scrip...

Winfield Courier, May 4, 1882.

Deputy Sheriff McIntire captured a prisoner, one T. G. Wright, Monday, at Hunnewell, charged with defrauding a young man by the name of Chinn, at Arkansas City. Wright purchased a team from Chinn and paid him in “Missouri Defense Bonds,” an old issue of Missouri scrip, claiming that the money was good and that he had deposited some in the bank and they received it without a word. He also claimed to own a farm and stock in the county, and finally induced Chinn to take the money in payment for the team. The young man came to town, found the money was not good, and informed deputy McIntire, who started in pursuit and overtook the fraud at Hunnewell.

Concerns Courier...

Winfield Courier, May 4, 1882.

                                                              City Printing.

At the meeting of the City Council Monday evening the COURIER was unanimously awarded the City printing for the coming year, at the rates prescribed by law. This makes the COURIER the official city, as well as county, paper. Last year the printing was awarded to the Telegram, and the contract was assumed by the Courant when that paper changed hands. The COURIER appreciates highly the compliment of its selection to official position in municipal affairs, and will endeavor to discharge the duties of the office in an “efficient, conscientious, and fearless manner,” present its bills regularly, and haunt the city treasurer with its “scrip” until the same is converted into legal tender.

Cowley County Courant, May 4, 1882.

George McIntire, our deputy sheriff, caught a man at Hunnewell, by the name of Wright, who is charged with having bought a team of a man at Arkansas City, a few days ago, and paid for it in bogus Missouri scrip. Wright was bound over before a justice at Arkansas City, and is now in jail here awaiting his trial. He has a family living in Sumner County.

Pertains to Caldwell...

Arkansas City Traveler, July 12, 1882.


A proposition is now before the taxpayers to vote bonds for the purpose of bonding the outstanding scrip indebtedness of the city and build two bridges. One span of the Fall creek bridge is about up, but the south approach will undoubtedly need a span of some fifty feet to make a good bridge of it. To pay for the bridge and the approach and build a bridge over Castro [?] creek east of town is the purpose for which the bonds are proposed. The bridge bonds should receive the hearty support of the entire city, as it is impossible to build bridges without money, and the bridges we must have. Caldwell Post.

Cowley County Courant, June 22, 1882.

For a genuine systematic liar and sneak of the first water, commend us to the dirty, bald-headed, meddlesome, red-wigged idiot, who so shamefully disgraces the office of city clerk of Winfield, David C. Beach. It seems to us that it would be a sensible thing for the Mayor to put a man in his position who would conduct his business in such a manner as to make it a less hardship for a man to go to his office and register than to lose his vote. Reasons are unnecessary to those who are acquainted with the city clerk. The appellation “coon-hunter” is very appropriately bestowed upon this officious gent, and a large proportion of the respectable people of our city would rejoice to see him forced to follow his favorite avocation, and relieved from his official duties as an appointee in an office to which he could not be elected under any circumstances, were it an elective office.

An officer who will speculate on the scrip issued by himself as clerk, to poor laborers who are compelled to have all the money they can get, by discounting it at ruinous rates and then turning it into the city treasury in the place of cash received for licenses, as Beach is charged with doing, is not entitled to the respect of any community, much less their confi­dence as an official.

Pertains to Cherokee Indians...

Arkansas City Traveler, January 3, 1883.

The Cherokee Indians, as a nation, are in a very prosperous condition, much better than at any time for many years. Under the present administration a national debt of $127,000 has been paid off, their preferred warrants raised from 50 cents on the dollar to 100; scrip from 25 cents on the dollar to 90 cents. The national treasury has over $100,000 surplus cash in the vaults, and the Council just appropriated $63,000 to maintain 101 public schools, and a male and female seminary the coming year. X.

Pertains to Winfield schools...

Winfield Courier, February 22, 1883.

                                                SCHOOL BOND ELECTION.

We would call the attention of the voters of this school district to the approaching election of Wednesday the 28th inst., to vote on the proposition for issuing $5,000 bonds of this school district to pay the district indebtedness; the bonds to run two, three, four, five, and six years. There are now about $5,000 of District scrip out drawing seven percent. It can be funded at six percent, and besides, the holders of the scrip will get their money at once. This indebtedness has accrued in several years past for balance of teachers’ wages, the heating apparatus and furniture in the schoolhouses and other improvements. The board are keeping the running expenses below the eight mill tax but this old debt is a drawback. By funding the debt and paying it by a yearly tax of two mills a year, which will pay it off in five years, the difficulty will be easily settled. We advise our electors to vote for the bonds.


Winfield Courier, July 19, 1883.

Judge Torrance held a special session of court Monday for the trial of civil cases. The case of Carpenter against Winfield Township was tried. It is the case growing out of the old Winfield Township scrip. Senator Sluss appeared for the defense and Jennings and Troup for the plaintiffs.

Winfield Courier, August 2, 1883.

At a special term of court Monday, Judge Torrance rendered judgment in the case of Carpenter vs. Old Winfield Township. The judgment is assessed against the township for the full amount of scrip and interest and orders it collected from the real estate embraced in the territory that was formerly Old Winfield Township.

Winfield Courier, August 9, 1883.

The balance of the Old Winfield Township scrip is now being raked up from waste-baskets and pigeon holes and presented for payment. James Jordan has discovered that he has some of it. Other parties are still to hear from.

Arkansas City Traveler, Supplement, December 19, 1883.

SKIPPED REPORT OF CITY CLERK OF ARKANSAS CITY. TOO HARD TO READ. GIVING SOME NAMES, ETC. ONLY.

Amount of scrip issued by city clerk from May 1, 1883, to December 15, 1883, inclusive.

W. H. SPEERS, RENT OF SPRING.

M. N. SINNOTT, SALARY FOR APRIL.

J. J. BREENE, SALARY.

M. C. COPPLE, HAULING.

W. D. KREAMER, SIDEWALK [MANY ENTRIES FOR THIS]

J. W. OLDHAM

CHICAGO LUMBER CO.

M. N. SINNOTT, WATER WORKS.

J. W. OLDHAM, WORK ON CALABOOSE.

J. J. BREENE, ARREST.

ED GRADY, LUMBER

W. H. STANTON, LEGAL SERVICES.

J. W. OLDHAM [MANY ENTRIES...SOME SHOWING SALARY, ONE SHOWING CUTTING WEEDS, REST BLANK AS TO REASON FOR PAYMENT.]

KIMMEL & MOORE, FENCE POSTS.

NEAL & BLENDING, CUTTING WEEDS.

GEO. W. CUNNINGHAM, SUNDRIES.

J. J. BREENE, STREETS.

C. L. SWARTS, LEGAL SERVICES.

SAMUEL CLARK, REPAIRING HYDRANT.

A. A. NEWMAN, DEED TO FOUNDRY LOT [AMOUNT $45.00]

A. A. NEWMAN, SIDEWALKS, ACCOUNT OF FELTON [AMOUNT $64.00]

C. M. McINTIRE, PRINTING [4 ENTRIES]

M. N. SINNOTT, REPAIRS ON ENGINE HOUSE.

TOTAL OF ABOVE: $1,304.28


Amount of cash received by city clerk from May 1, 1883, to December 15, 1883, inclusive. [AGAIN...JUST NAMES/REASON]

W. WARD, LICENSE JOB WAGON.

McMASTERS, LICENSE BILLIARD HALL.

L. B. MOORE, LICENSE JOB WAGON.

A. DUNN, LICENSE OMNIBUS.

GEO. RICHIE, PEDDLER LICENSE.

O. L. HUXTON, SHOW LICENSE.

CIRCUS LICENSE.

W. D. KREAMER, LICENSE JOB WAGON.

JOE COHN, PEDDLER LICENSE [2 ENTRIES].

ARLINGTON TROUP LICENSE.

J. M. MOORE, JOB WAGON LICENSE.

DR. P. PRATT, PEDDLER LICENSE.

W. J. GARNEL, JOB WAGON LICENSE.

NELSON HOBAUGH, JOB WAGON LICENSE.

MATIE WILLIAMS TROUP.

R. L. COWLES, JOB WAGON LICENSE.

S. SECORD, PEDDLER LICENSE [2 ENTRIES].

W. WARD, ON JOB WAGON ACCOUNT.

TOTAL OF ABOVE: $125.01

ADDED TO ABOVE: POLICE COURT DOCKET $29.00.

THIS MADE GRAND TOTAL OF $154.01.

Paid to H. P. Farrar, treasurer of city: $154.01

Cash received from county treasurer: $270.69

Cash received from marshal: $28.00

City scrip redeemed: $550.43

Covered scrip only...

Arkansas City Traveler, July 9, 1884.

                                                        Council Proceedings.

                                         A Full Statement of the City’s Condition.

The council met in regular session last Monday night, with every councilman present.

Moved that finance committee be instructed to meet treasurer and check up books and destroy all paid up scrip.

DISBURSEMENTS. Scrip issued to Ward Harnly, Mowry & Sollitt, merchandise, Speers, water rent, P. Ellis, coal, P. Wyckoff, rent, J. W. Canfield, repairing tank, W. Gray, marshal, E. Malone, water commissioner, Stroup, labor, Clarke & Coombs, printing, Corzine & Richards, printing, Chicago Lumber Co., lumber, E. Malone, hardware, J. Moore, labor, Benedict & Owen, merchandise, J. J. Breene, police, D. Hawkins, sidewalk, R. Cowles, coal, J. Steadman, dog checks, G. W. White, police, E. W. Finch, boarding prisoners, J. Kreamer, police, H. Adams, police, F. Decker, water commissioner...TOTAL: $517.99

SUMMARY.

Amount received: $2,076.41


Amount disbursed: $517.99

Less scrip unpaid $15.75

Old scrip and int. Redeemed: $490.45

In hands of clerk: 10.00

License issued and not paid: $67.00

TOTAL: $1,069.69

Arkansas City scrip..South Bridge...

Arkansas City Traveler, July 30, 1884.

                                                          The South Bridge.

Much complaint is being heard as to the condition of the south bridge floor, which is badly in need of repair. Our friends in Bolton Township are particularly clamorous on this subject. In this connection we will say our impression is that Bolton owns two-fifths of this bridge, and has agreed to pay two-fifths of the expense necessary to keep it in repair; but we are informed that for nearly two years Creswell Township has borne the entire burden, and that today Bolton Township owes Creswell between $300 and $400 on account of repairing the bridge. This sum, if paid, would be sufficient to place the floor in good condition once more. The interests of the two townships are identical, and they should work in harmony. It is not right for our friends across the river to expect Creswell Township to take entire charge of the bridge, simply because Arkansas City is located therein. The benefits accruing to our businessmen are certainly of no more consequence than is the convenience afforded to the farmers by a substantial bridge. We want to see this bridge kept in good order, even if our township must issue scrip therefor; but we submit that our Bolton Township friends are somewhat behind in their part of the contract, and we fear there is a too general feeling among them to let Creswell do it all.

Arkansas City...

Arkansas City Traveler, August 6, 1884.

                                                        Council Proceedings.

Council met in regular session last Monday, August 4. Present: F. P. Schiffbauer, mayor; C. G. Thompson, T. Fairclo, and A. A. Davis.

Bills to the amount of $303.87 were presented and allowed, and bill of Frank Wallace for $8.10 was referred.

C. G. Thompson was authorized to expend $15 for enlarging the windows in the calaboose, and the mayor was authorized to purchase two balls and chains for the use of prisoners.

Adjourned to Monday night, August 11.

The following reports were received and placed on file.

CITY CLERK’S REPORT—RECEIPTS. TOTAL: 42,708.40

Balance on hand at last report: $1,004.72

Received from W. D. Kreamer: 8.00

From county treasurer (taxes): 370.00

From Co. Treasurer bond fund: 480.00

From sinking fund: 1.35

From sidewalk fund: 495.71


Collection of water rent: 225.35

From licenses: 80.27

Licenses issued last month: 35.00

DISBURSEMENTS. TOTAL: $1,227.90

Scrip Issued and not paid: $12.00

Dry tax issued and not paid: $3.00

[DRY TAX??? COULD THEY HAVE MEANT DOG TAX??]

                                                  JAMES BENEDICT, Clerk.

CITY TREASURER’S REPORT. TOTAL: $2,227.55

To balance report of July 8: $1,006.72

Cash received from tax fund: $370.00

From sidewalk fund: $495.71

Occupation tax and water rent: $485.12

Old scrip redeemed: $882.35

New scrip redeemed: 345.61

Balance: $999.59

Cash paid by Co. Treasurer (balance forwarded) $480.00

Same sinking fund: $1.35

BALANCE IN MY HANDS: $1,480.94

                                                      C. R. SIPES, Treasurer.

COLLECTION OF WATER RENTS.

I herewith submit my report of the amount of water tax collected up to August 2, 1884.

Chicago Lumber Co. $5.00

George Hazel [Must mean Hasie] $10.00

E. D. Eddy $3.75

Fairclo Brothers $20.00

Ed. Grady $3.33

George Childers $5.00

H. Godehard $1.25

O. Stevenson $5.00

Stedman Bros. $4.40

E. F. Shindel $5.00

J. B. Nipp $5.00

L. H. Braden $20.00

William Gibby $5.00

Samuel Burress $2.20

Charles Hutchins $2.20

W. E. Gooch $5.00

H. D. Kellogg $2.15

J. A. McIntire $20.00

Pentecost & Lyman $14.00

A. W. Patterson $10.00

Stage company $5.00


F. A. Chambers $5.00

Charles Bryant $6.25

John Love $5.00

J. H. Hilliard $20.00

Hoskins & Neal $5.00

Thompson & Woodin $20.00

A. B. DeBruce $4.75

O. P. Houghton $11.00

W. G. Miller $6.75

TOTAL: $253.18

Ten percent for collection: $25.31

BALANCE: $227,85

Paid City Treasurer: 225.85

BALANCE (ON HAND): $2.47

The police judge reports $51 as the amount of fines assessed during last month, and $46.50 as amount collected.

The special census taker, B. C. Lindsay, reports the population of Arkansas City at 3,004.