San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1882-03-23
The Road Question.


EprroR FREE Pass while / have an
aversion 10 newspaper controversies, think
il would be unjust to the Commissioners
Court for me to refrain longer from calling
attention 10 some erroneous ideas advanced
by some of your correspondents, in regard
TO the duties of the court upon the subject
Of public roads, referring 10 the article In
your last issue over the none-deplume of
''Strictor." 1t "strikes me" that Mr..
Strictor should DO more strictly informed
about the labors ofthe geatlmen he chooses
to call supervisors, and their power and au-
thority under the laws and constitution which
they have all sworn TO support, before he
undertakes to .'ventilate" them before the
public In newspaper. l wonder II no
knows that the commissioners have laid out
and established every road that they have
been asked to establish for the last four
years except one, and that one was reported
by the Commissioners of review AZ being i'm
practicable and useless withall, and recon-
mended that il be not established. ! won
der il he IL aware of the fact, that TO levy
the special tax he refers to for road pur-
poses would be in direct violation OF the
constitution and laws of the state? would
like to know if he is aware Of the fact that
the Commissioners have no more right TO
lay out and establish road than the furth-
est man in ALASKA, until petition is pre-
sented to them and signed by at least eight
citizens along the proposed route, and twen-
ty days notice has been given, by posting
notices in three different public places, of
their intentions prior to the first day of
the court?
would like to hear if he is aware Of the
fact, that if the Commissioners were to take
one dollar out of the County Treasury for
road purposes without first having the law
complied with in regard to the same, that
the Grand Jury would and ought to indict
the last one of them: and if he knows that
the court has always paid reasonable dam
age to have roads opened, when the Statutes
on the subject have been complied with.
He writes his article from Science Hall,
wonder if he lives there, end does not
know that the Commissioners Court at
their last term appointed reviewers to view
out three different roads running to or
within the vicinity of that place, and
wonder if he does not know that it is not
the duty of the COMMISSIONERS to work the
roads, but that duty belongs to the overseers
and the hands wonder how many days
"Strictor'' worked the roads last year: The
law requires that all road hands work their
roads ten days each year, if it be necessary
to put them in good condition.
Have the overseers of Travis County per-
formed their duties more faithfully than
those of Hays9 The Commissioners in their
Judgment selected the overseers for this
County from the best men in the County.
Their judgment may be at fault, but they |
DO not think so; will refer the matter to
Mr.. "Sfrictor"(see list in FREE PRESS under
date End day Of March, 1882
Now "Mr. Strictor," that statement that
one of the Commissioners said he would not
give cent to any road, won't do. I know
hem better than that; I expect this is what
be said, that he would not give a cent to
my road illegally-if he did not say it he
ought to have done SO, if the occasion gave
him the opportunity
If the overseers and hands are not doing |
their duty, why does uot "Strictor" get
after them? "Strictor" certainly does know
hat the Commissioners could not take the
court house funds and expend it upon roads. |
I agree with you Mr. ''Strictor," that we
ought to have good roads and plenty of
hem: we have road system that in my
Judgment is better than the tax system as is |
by the roads now and du ring the
Davis administration. So far as l am indi-
gidually concerned am in favor Of roads,
md the records of the court will show that I |
have done all in my power to prevent the
closing of one and for the establis hment of
new ones. EDw'D r. KoNE.