Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1871-07-22
Ia, The Reyisttr.

|
J. J. Kerns and John Ransburg, who
tarcically style themselves a Board of
Supervisors, an Injunction not obtained
from the Judge of this Circuit, or a
Judge of the Court of Appeals, but
from VIGOROUSLY incompetent Judge
resident in the western part OF the State,
obtained from him clandestinely without
! even an intimation Of notice. We re-
terred to it as making not only fierce
and unjust assaults on the living. but
vampire like, have sought to draw the
honored dead from resting place,
which is considered sacred even among
barbarians. We revert to this Bill, and
to its mistatements. We have pledged
ourself to an exposure of its enormitles,
and we will fulfil that pledge to the let
ter. The next Misrepresentation in the
Bill is, that Ehud Turner is not a legal
member Of the Board, that a majority
OF the votes were cast for B. t. Harris
on. The facts antagoniStic to this
averment are: That an 'q"a' number
of votes were cast at the October cleo
ton for Mr.. Turner and Mr., Harrison,
on which devoved the duty upon the
Board, under the law which prcscribes
that, "When it appears that two or
more persons voted for, have received
an equal number Of votes, the Board OF
Supervisors shall decide the tie by elect
ING one Of said persons.-Sec. 60, Chap.
A." The Board in accordance with the
! law thus laid down unanimously elected
Mr.. Ehud Turner member Of the
| board.
The next assertion is, "That the
Board illegally removed Messrs. Haines
and Ransburg." They were removed
in strict conformity OF the law found in
Sec 7, Chap 7, page - Of the Code for
"willful and habitual neglect OF duty IN
not attending the sessions ofthe Board
and in making a part Of the bogus
Board at Charlestown. The law in
their cases was complied with in every
particular. They were duly, and legal
~ served with notice OF the charges
preferred against them under the law,
they were summoned before the Board
to defend themselves They made no
defense. They could make none. And
the Board, as the law required it to do,
removed them. And yet this bill al
firms, that they Were illegally removed,
in defiance of the facts and of the record
in their cases
The next misrepresentation which
we expose is this, "'The Board Of SUI
peryisors has issued a money order to
the extent of from seven to eight hun
dred dollars to pay the fees Of no less
than three lawyers, two Of them residing
outside Of the county, for the purpose OF
unfolding said pretended Board" This
is wholesale mistatemcnt, without a
single preteXt to sustain it. The Board
has never issued an order or made an
appropriation for any such purpose OF
one single cent, and has never made an
order to pay the fees Of q single lawyer
for any such service.
The next charge in the Bill is, that
the Board N'gaHg appropriated sum
of money to finish the mecadamized
road through Bolivar. What is meant
by the illegality ofthis act we are not
advised. The Board has the right to
make the appropriation under the Con-
stitution and laws of the State. The
legality of the action Of the Board in
such cases has never before been ques-
toned, where the benefit Of such action
has accrued to CharleStown.
Where were the doubts and scruples
of those parties who are so ready with
Iniunctions against Bolivar and liar
per's Ferry, when appropriations were
made to a road to Haiitown connecting
with the road TO Charlcstown, and Tor
the Bloomery road leading to Charles
town. consistency is a jewel" When
Harper's Ferry and Bolivar and their
people are to be benefited, wrong and
illegality are committcd when Charles
town is to become the recipient Of the
public bounty, it is all right and beauti-
fully legal, and no Injunction cotton up
with despatch and secretly obtained.
But complaint Is made in the Bill that
the contract was awarded to Mr. Ia
dock Butt an old resident of the Coun-
tv, and one Of natures noblemen, an
honest man. When contracts are
awarded to residents Of another State,
in no wise interested in the County or
its people, Charlestown does not utter
complaint.
1t is affirmed too, that Mr. Butt is a
brothcr-in-lav of Mr.. Roderick, one Of
the Board. 1t is not true that any such
connection exists between them. The
further charge is made in the Bill, that
"aIessrs Spangler and Roderick, two
members OF the Board, were interested
in the contract" On the authority Of
both these gentlemen, they pronounce
the charge an unmitigated SANDER. Mr..
Butt has finished the work, and settled
his account in full with the Board. 1t
is charged that "Mr. Butt gave no bond
or guaranty for performance Of his con-
tract" Mr.. Butt did give his bond
with ample security for the faithful dis
charge of the contract, and Disbursement
of the money, which is on file in the Of
fee Of the Board, open to the inspection
of every citizen of the County. Why,
and for what purposes such reckless as
sertions arc made, and sworn to, we
leave the people Of the County to judge.
The people always in the end render q
Just verdict. The concluding para
graph Of this famous @ Bill, is an APP
propriate climax to all its unjustihable