The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1900-04-21
Lsvse Board Compromise.

mississippi LeVee commissioners
against the Yazoo & Mississippi
| Valley Railroad Company in
which the Board asserted, as the
successor of the Ten Cent Leyee
Board, its clam against the lands
held by the Railroad Company, or
to a lien upon said lands for the
back taxes claimed to be due the
Ten Cent Levee Board, has been
compromised by the railroad
Company paying 1925, 10000.
Our information IS that the at
torneys representing the Board,
of which law firms the President
of the board and its Attorney are
members, get 30 per cent of this
amount, S3550000, leaving for
the Board the sum of SS7, 10000.
The amount of the taxes inyolv-
ed in the suits which the Board
claimed as due it, in round mum
bers, was S750,O00.00. If the
suit was meritorious one the
compromise is a poor one. If it was
a speculative litigation instituted
primarily for the benefit of the Gt-
torneys who brought it, the con-
promise was a good one, and the
suit one to which the Board should
not have been u party 1t the
chances of winning were so slim
as to justify such a compromise
the suit should not have been
brought. The only thing which
could have justified the institution
of this suit by the Board, which
has beclouded and still beclonds, the
title to thousands of acres OF land
throughout the Delta owned by
taxpayers of the Board was that it
had a clear legal right to recover
taxes claimed, and that it was its
duty as the Trustee OF the people
to enforce this right by suit. The
institution of the suit was lniqult-
Gus unless instituted for this rea-
son, and if instituted for this rea-
son, it should not have been com
promisee for a sum so paltry com
pared with the amount claimed.
This compromise does not effect
the claim OF the Board againat in
dividuals whose lands were sold
for the Ten Cent taxes. The bill
which sought to permit such land
owners to acquire the title of the
Board for a nominal consideration
failed of passage IN the Leglsla-
ture, reaching the House too late
for consideration. This was due,
as we learn, to the action of Sena-
tor l.. c. DuInney IN entering a
motion in the Senate for the re-
consideration of the bill, at
time when it Y as plain that such
motion would result in the failure
of the bin TO pass; and this was
done after the bill had been agrc-
ed upon between lie parties re-
the land owners and
the attorney OF the Board 1t is
scarcely creditablo that it should
have been done ut the instance of
the Board. We trust that the ia lure
of the bill does not indicate an in
tentlon on the part of the Board
OF imposing onerous conditions
upon such OF its taxpayers as may
be so unfortunate as to require
quit claim deed from it IN order to
clear up their title. 1t will be
violatlve Of every sense of decency
and right if the Board does not
ssttle with these land owners on
the terms which were contained in
the bill which had been agreed
upon by its authorized attorney.
The taxpayers have right to de-
mand that good faith be observed
in the matter, and that their mis-
fortunes shall not be made a
source of revenue to attorneys re-
lated to the Board by ties of con-
or affinity.
----..----.-------@--