The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1902-04-15

the court, explaining this as the reason
of the tardiness of the auditors of JEFF
fersor and Carroll in discovering the
alleged fraud. Mr.. Brookes having
commented on the singularity of the
discovery of fraud so long after the
board had been in session. 1--WE never
saw the records until the hearing took
place." said Attorney Thompson, "and
feel that it was clearly fraud" Mr..
Brookes was the next speaker. He said
he was anxious to learn how the gen
tlemen of Carroll and Jefferson could
reconcile their claim of fraud with the
petition of Auditor Fernsell. in which
they concu;red and made no claim OF
fraud. He said there was only one
course the board could pursue, and
that was to distribute the rolling stock
according to the amount used on the
various branches and divisions--on
the percentage basis.
ERRORS INSIGNIFICANT.
1t developed at the hearing that the
secretary of the board may not have
been infallible in all respects, but Mr.
Brookes' contention was. that IL he
made any errors. they were SO insig.
nificant as to be immaterial, and they
did not misrepresent the action of the
board. Fraud means something more
than mistakes. erasures. clerical er.
rors or blotting or cutting out pages" :"
said Mr.. Brookes. ut means the will
full intention to deceive. There is not
the slightest scincilla of evidence to
sustain such charges" Continuing he
said that II the attack of fraud failed
then the record OF the board must be
believed. 1t was not the record Of a
court but of body which for many
Their acts should be considered conclu-
sive. unless for attacks Of fraud. If
the attack fails, the master commits
sioner must look solely to the record
for guidance. The board found that
the Cleveland and Pittsburg lines were
divided into divisions and sections,
and having so found 1t was their duty
to do one thing. That was to appraise
it in the manner prescribed by law.
1t was contended the boards inter-
probation of the statutes is right.
ALLEGATIONS UNFOUNDED.
Testimony was had as to the
rolling stock and 1t was distributed
on basis of rs per cent for the main
line, 20 per cent for the river division
and five percent for the Tuscarawas
branch. Mr.. Fernsell. the speaker said,
took the case to the supreme court to
get the construction of the statute as
to what the boards duty was in this
instance. His was an honest effort.
The question has never been passed
upon by the supreme court. The allie.
cation of fraud should have never been
allowed to creep in. Had there been
fraud Mr.. Fernsell would have known
of it when it was committed and would
not have remained passive. The mas
ter commissioner had no right to re.
view the action of the board unless
the record was impeached. 1t would
be wholly unnecessary to make the
board do over again what it has al
ready DONE Attorney General Sheets
followed and said that the work of the
board was all wrong. He claimed that
every foot of the road was appraised
at $1,000 per mile and that 1t should
have been distributed on that basis.
Not having done this, he declared, the
board should reconvene and perform
this duty. They could not distribute
on the percentage basis because the
appraisement was not made on this
basis.
According to the minutes the board
delegated power to the secretary. which
they had no authority to do. The Sec
retary was instructed to determine
what the law required, leaving him to
do what was enjoined on them by the
statutes. Messrs. Beckley, Wana.
maker and Kizer substantiated what Mr.
Broolses said in his arguments. Con,
siderable interest exists as to what tho
finding of fact by the master commits
sioner will be.
GEORGE T. BLAKE.