The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1906-08-16
Instituted Against Former Men,
bers Of County Board for (
Alleged 0veTdrafts.
MANY REASONS ADVANCED WHY
SUITS FOR COLLECTION OF
AMOUNTS ALLEGED TO HAVE
BEEN ILLEGALLY PAID SHOULD
BE QUASHED BY THE BOARD.

The following commun' cation was
submitted to the Board of County
Commissioners at the regular meeting
on Tuesday night last by former Com:
missioner Frank Johnson, relative to
the suits that have been instituted
against former commissioners for
money alleged to have been illegally
collected bycthem:
Pensacola, Fla. Aug. IA, 1906.
To the Honorable Board of County
Commissioners, Escambia CoLl-
ty, Florida
Gentlemen:-Referr;ng to the suits
which you have instructed your attor-
ney to bring against several former
members of the EScambia County
Board of Commissioners, said suits
being based on amounts claimed to
have been illegally, paid to the said
Commissioners for. services for road
and bridge inspection and for looking
after road and ridge work generally.
| have thought best, in justice to my
self and others interested, to come be.
fore you and to respectfully request
that these suits be withdrawn or that
the suits against the former commits
sioners who represented country dis
trlcts be withdrawn. l make this dis
tinction entirely without prejudice as
to former members who represented
city districts and for the reason that
the same arguments do not apply as
the duties were and are entirely diff
ferent in many respects from those of
a commissioner representing a city
district; and l also find that the road
laws then in effect apply to the SER
vices for which these amounts were
paid to country members of former
boards.
4 ask that the suits be dismissed for
the following reasons:
Reasons for Dismissal.
First. The law does not say that
the compensation of commissioner
shall not exceed one hundred dollars
per annum, but does say that q com
missioner shall not be paid over one
hundred dollars per aTnlim for his per
diem.
This has always been construed by
the Escamb'a board and by it's differ
-ent attorneys and clerks as referring
commissioners court.
In other words, commissioners
could not draw pay for more than fifty
meetings per year at two dollars per
meeting Previous to 1901, this was re-
stricted to fifty dollars per year or
twenty-five meetings per year at two
dollars per meeting. If il, was neces-
sary for the commissioners to hold
over twenty-five meetings per year
they did not get pay for the excess
over twenty-five and this was carried
out to the letter by Escambia county
boards. I believe that this was intend
ed to apply to payment for attendance
at the meetings of the commissioners
court and that it has no other applica-
ton.
Previous to 1895 the general road law
allowed two dollars per day for road
and bridge inspection. but in that
year the law was changed, the changes
being very slight but the clause that
allowed this two dollars per day was
left out.
1t seems that this change in the Jaw
was never noticed in Escambia coun-
ty. either by any member Of the board
or its attorneys or clerks.
Question Not Brought Up.
When Il first vert on the board in
1896. which was a year after the law
was changed, / was informed that I