The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1875-06-23

| ING THE MIXED AND MKSTE
i FLED Law.
THORN HnL, Granger CO., Tenn,
June 70, 1875.
To the Editor OF the Morristown Gazette:
The people residing in this vicini
ty and along the Beans Station
Turnpike q are possessed Of a sin
gular infatuation, viz: That they
have been wronged. Singular. in.
deed it iss that people who do moi
happen to hold Office should think
that they could be wronged by Office.
holders; for. OF course, in these LAT.
ter days, the officials have . right to
do just as they choose. and the com
mon citizen has no rights. STILL the
ideas or the people are somewhat
mixed about the affairs of this noto-
rious "pole and pine-brush T1rn-
pike" 81 running, as It now seems.
from Morristown to Cumberland Gap.
The present Board Of Commission
ers, whom the law says shall ''hold
over until a new Board is elected,
(which election is to take place in
January, 1875, have seen tit to make
several changes from what heretofore
existed: 1st, they changed the ter.
minus of said road from Cheeks x
Roads to Morristown. End, they es-
tablished toll gate in Hamblen
county. Sd, they require each man
within one mile (instead Of l mile as
heretofore) to do militia duty on the
road. 4th, they require each militia.
man to work six, instead of three
days, as heretofore, on the road.
The question that arises is this
Have they any warrant of law for
this action? Senator Hodges and
Representative Patton say they have
not for establishing a gate In Ham,
blep. That was intended TO be the
duty of, or rather, as the law reads,
a privilege of the Commissioners TO
be elected in 1876. Is there then
any special proviso in the bill author
izing or warranting them in making
the other three charges? Upon the
announcement, from Messrs. Hodges
and Patton, that the law, or that
part of it, was to take place only af-
ter January, 1876. the toll-gate in
Hamblen was squelched "instanter."
What we all want to know is this:
IF the present Board of Commission.
ers had not the right to establish
this new gate. how, under the same
act, did they acquire the right TO
change the terminus of the road? or
how had they the right to require
six instead of three days work on
the road by the militia? or how had
they the right to call upon those at
all to work who lived over one-half
mile from the road? Can any law,
without special provision, make it
the duty of officers to execute a part
and not the whole of that law? This
is precisely what "our people, are
"mgired'' about. They want, and In
tend to have this tangle unrave:ed.
There were those, who, acting in
good faith under the old statute and
prior to the action of the late Legis-
lature, worked out the three days
according to the then existing law,
and at the call of the Overseer, and
by order Of the Commissioners, as
the Executives of that law, and have
the Overseer's receipt for full COM
pliance with the requirements of the
law for 1875, so far as this road was
concerned. Yet, when this new law
is passed the compliance with the
contract is wholly disregarded, and
they (the citizens) are called upon
for an extra three days Of labor. Is
this exactly " the clean thingT"
Suppose A. owes SO to B.. to be
paid between January, 1875, and
January, 1876, but in March, 1876.
A. comes up and settles the whole
debt, taking BIS receipt for the same.
yet. In May, b. says 70 A.. the year
1875 has not yet passed, hence. you
must pay me the SO again.. just
precisely such is the case between
the citizen and the State. IL, was
considesed q fair contract, and The
citizen complied with bis part of it.
Hag any man, or set of men, the
right Co change the nature OF or spec
ifications in the old contract without
fair warning. This may be an erro-
neons view Of the case. 1--WE are no
lawyerl. but of this much we are GER
tain, the present :, Board of Commis-
sioners" are either bound TO act in
their old capacity under the old law,
or as anew Board under the new law.
If the latter is their status they had
q perfect right to place gate in
HambIen. according to the letter Of.
the new law. and if they had this
right they certainly, aspublic officers.
ought not to have allowed the simple
announcement Of Messrs. Hodges and
Patton 20 cause them to retraot their
action in placing q tOIl-gate in Harn-
blen. III they are to . bold over il
their old capacity. then. Of course.
they were transcending the limit of
their official duty in acting upon any
part of the new law.
If It is wholly optional with other
men (be they whom they may1 what
part or parts of any law enacted by
our Legislature, our people are re-
quired TO execute and obey, to The
exclusion Of any other certain parts |
OF said law, apparently equally bind |
sxnr then wv0 had aa sal s2srwSow.e.. l