The Russellville Democrat., 1878-07-18
THE COURT HOUSE QUES-
 TION.
A Reply to Wm. Reynolds Letter.

J of May 30th, appears an article signed by Wm. Reynolds, and head ed "The Court House." in which l think Mir. Reynolds gives expres- sion to views erroneous as to both the law and the propriety of my action in that matter.
 MT. Reynolds quotes part of sec. 19, chap. 42 Gould's Digest, part of sec. 2S, art. of present Constitu tion, and refers to sec. 66S of Gantts Digest, and argues from them that the Go. Court consisting O. Judge alone has authority to have the court house repaired.
 But why did not Mir. Rnynolds give us ali of the sections quoted from instead of part only of each! As he failed I will give the whole of each, and see if they, applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, 2ill sustain his views.
 Sec. I9, chap. 42 Gould's Digest, reads: The Co. Court shall have power from time to time to alter, repair or rebuild any county build ing which has been or may here after be erected in their respective counties and may cause a pillory and other necessary buildings and fixtures to be erected, as circum- stances may require, AND THE FUNDS OF THE COUNTY WILL ADMIT. And they shall moreover take such meas urcs as shall be necessary to pre- serve all buildings and property of their county from waste or damage" "
 We sec that one imperative condi- tion under that law for the court to proceed Tn such matters was stuff ciency of funds. Will the funds of the county now admit of such expen sive proceedings? Let our depleted Treasury answer.
 But. what was necessary under that law to obtaln sulllciency of funds? A levy of tax and an appro- priation for the purpose by a major ity of the justices of the county as it is under the present law. Sec. 1 of same chapter and Digest reads "Whcncver the county court shall deem it cxpedient to levy a tax for the erection of any public building OR THE REPAIR OF THE SAME it shall require a majority of the justices of the county therein commissioned to concur in making any such order to levy such tax for erecting public buildings" How can the Co. Court make an order of such outlays unless there had been an appropriation to meet it, and how could there be an |
 appropriation without the levy of q tax to pay it? And we see that under that law majority of the justices was necessary for that pur- pose.
 But will MT. Reynolds contend that that law in Gould's Digest is in force now? If it is l have no au- thority to do anything in any matter for under that law two justices had to sit with the Go. Judge in trans acting all business.
 See. GGS Gantt's Digest referred to by MT. Reynolds reads; 'Such board (meaning supervisors) shall have power from time to time to alter, repair or rebuild any county building &c., as circumstances may require AND THE FUNDS OF THE CoUN- TY WILL ADMIT"
 And under that law all county business was transacted by a board of supervisors who had full control of county affairs under the law and there was no such thing as Go. Judge or quorum of the county, but even with the plenltude of power with winch they were invested, a suili- cicncy of funds was an absolute con dltion to such proceedings. Will Mir. Reynolds contend that shat flaw is in force?
 We come now to the present con stitution, and see what sec. 2S, art. says, where all of it is fairly given The Co. Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to county taxes, roads bridges, ferries, paupers, bastardy vagrants, the apprenticeship O minors, the disbursement of money l for county purposes, and i'll every other case that may pc necessary tC the internal improvement and loca concerns of the respective counties TuE COUNTY COURT SHALL BE HE'LL