The Adair County news., 1905-03-29
wherever used. Had your de.

permanent improvements would
have failed and a more extensive
use of money in road grading re-
suited. / do not condemn the use
of the grader, but advocate limi-
ting it to the extent of stone ap-
piled to the grades made by it.
l do not favor the levying of a
tax to keep up the present sys-
tenn of road making and firmly
believe that the tax payers will
realize that it is an expensive
luxury if its use is continued
much longer unless followed with
stone. / can not overthrow this
system or inaugurate a better
one; that alone is with the mag
istrates whose fidelity to the coun-
tvs interests l do not doubt.
have no controversy with any
other Official, now serving this
county or who may have ser 1ed
it in the past. God forbid that |
should stoop so low, at any time
or under any circumstances, to
knock on the grave-stone of the
honored dead or invade the sac
redness of honest and faithful
service of retired officials. This
controversy is between you and
me and your own make. Had you
stood to the original question
the making of good roads, and
not attacked my motives, it would
have been different. You invited
me to go to the records and court
ed an investigation. I went, and
published what seemed to me a
fair summary of costs growing
out Of the purchase and use of
the grader which brought vile de-
nunciations on me from you. You
do not deny that you received the
S130 and do not contend that it
was legal, but justify your actions
from the standpoint of earning
it. 1t is not my business to say
whether you earned it or not. The
order shows a dodge of a decis-
ion of the Court of Appeals while
your paper printed the allowance
as services for road supervisor
which was a hiding from the peo-
pie in it's publication. In a case
carried up from Daviess county
by the County Judge of that coun-
ty for similar service the Court
Of Appeals affirmed the decision
Of the lower court which had held
that such an allowance was not
legal.
A decision of the Court of APP
peals, rendered December LIST,
1908, Daviess county against
Goodwin, closes as follows:
"The Fiscal Court is abody of
limited authority. It is without
power under the statute to APP
point the County Judge as super
visor. It's action was, therefore.
nugatory. The authorities relied
on for appellant as to the accept
ance Of anincompatible office have
no application, as the order of the
Fiscal Court appointing the Coun-
ty Judge as Supervisor was void.
The appellee, Goodwin, is citi-
zen and taxpayer of the county,
suing for himself and all other
taxpayers, and may as such main
tain the action to prevent a mis-
appropriation of the county's
funds, for if the money of the
county is wrongfully expended,
taxes must be levied to supply it's
place in the treasury, and thus
an additional burden will be cast
on the taxpayers. Judgment af-
firmed.''
The order | published was made
after the above decision and is as
follows:
October term, Fiscal court.
1904. Whereas, T. A. Murre,l
was supervisor of the roads for
and during the year of 1903, and
the court of appeals held that
nothing could be paid for servi-
ces as supervisor of roads, and
whereasA it was necessary for
him to use his horse and buggy,
and whereas, at the last term OF
this court he was allowed about
thirty dollars for the use of said
horse and buggy, and the court
having considered said matter, it
is now ordered that T. A. Murrell
be allowed one hundred dollars in
addition to the thirty dollars here