Macon beacon. [volume] (Macon, Miss.) 1859-1995, 1892-06-18
The Board of Supervisors and Coun
ty Contractor.

We must acknowledge our surprise
at the action OF the Board of Supcrvi-
5ors in bringing suit against Mr.. H.
Brewer, the County Contractor and
the suretics on his bond for what. if u
claim at law at all, is technical one
and did not enter at all, in the contract
as filed by the contractor and approved
10y the Board.
We believe in all men both private
and public, paving their Just, honest
and legitimate debts, and il we ave a
notion which might be considered
cranky, il is that no public official who
can not by law discharge his official
duties by clerk, deputy OF proxy, as
for instance magistrate, member Of
the Board Of Supervisors or a Legisla.
tor, who cannot manage bis own fnan-
cial affairs successfully, is not a suita-
bic person to manage State or county
finances that amounts TO probably one
hundred times more than docs his.
and we consider it the height of pre-
sumption tor such one to take such
grave responsibilities on their shout
dcrs and make a success of il. As Il
citizen and Il taxpayer we want Mr..
Brewer TO pay every dollar that his
contract calls for hnl he has so ten
dercd il to the Board which they have
refused to accept, and while We do
not put our judgment of law again,,
the eminent lawyer that the Board has
selected to represent the county, still
we have our views of the matter and
there are common sense and common
law actions that courts and juries arc
frequently deciding superior 10 sta,u-
tory law.
This is idenIiCally the same contract
made under the same statutes that the
last contract was made with Mr.. Buch.
anan. of Chickasaw county, aud why
did the Board settle with him in n
different manner than Mr.. Brewer?
If the Court holds that the Board is
right in this action against Mr., Brew.
CIR, then each one of the old Board in.
Guiding the two members of this Board
who were reelected, are liable Oh
their Bonds to the county at the sui
of any tax payer. We hold that tho
lines and costs that the contractor ha.
TO pay twice year to the count,
treasurer is not in addition TO the con
tract entered into by the Board, bu
such payments are vouchers which
Mr.. Brewer should receive credit fol
in his settlement with the county, an.
there Is not member of the Boar,
nut that knows that ii was the inten
ton that il should be settled this way
as ono of the members informed m,
that IT the law required Brewer to set
lie like the Clerk had made out his &C
count that his convicts would cost hin
moro than twenty dollars each pc
month. when he can hire as man,
hahde rs lie wants at six to eight dol
lars per month. We hope, gentlemen
OF the Board, and know you are act,l
ntcd by pure motives aud for the bcs
interest Of the county, but by your at
ton you brand Mr.. Brewer as dc
faulicr and dishonest man, when yo
admit publicly that if You have the nd
vantage Of him II is n technical on,
and there 10 no justice in ii, and fca
that instead of bcneiitting the count,
you will merely have tho pleasure 4
taxing them an additional one hun
trcd dollars 10 pay your attorney fe
in this ease.
Watch the prediction gentlemen
aud | hope you have taken the preca,
ton to pay a contingent fee for hi
service, for ! feel satisfied that no jur