The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1906-08-16
ASKS COMMISSIONERS :.
TO DISMISS The SUITS

know the question was never brought
up until after l had ceased to be a
member of said board which was in
January, 1905. mention this to- show
that the commiss 'oners thought that
they were legally entitled to the
amounts when it was paid and that 1t
was not graft as it has been de.ignat-
eG and referred to in the report Of the
state auditor to the governor in 1905,
and In this connection | would like to
say further, and l can say it positive
", that in. handling the finances of the
county for nine years from 1896 to
1905, which amounted In the aggre-
! gate to more than half million dol
lars there was no graft on the part
of any commissioner or known to any
commissioner and think theirs is a
record OF honest business methods
and good results along the line of i'm
i provements resulting in the. upbuild-
ing of our county of which they can
we'll be proud. When the idea of a
better system of road building for our
county and the working of county
convicts for this purpose was first
| conceived in 1897 and from that time
on, every county member showed
great interest and did everything in
his power to make the system a sue
cess.
The New Road Law.
The present law authorizing the
| working OF convicts on the roads of
tho several counties and making all
needed provisions for carrying out
that work, which was passed in 1899,
was drafted by three of these same
Escambia county commissioners and
! was introduced in the legislature, at
their request by j. Ed O'Br,en and
the late j. NJ. Hilhard. This is, |
| think, an evidence of the interest
taken by them in the work
The road law of 1899 was intended
as special law covering the working
OF convicts and does not in any way
Interfere with the general law of
1895.
Section l of the law of 1899 reads
in part as follows: Provided that
nothing is implied in this act to pre-
| vent any county in this state from
working roads as the law now directs
Of any general road law may hereafter
direct"
L think it is very plain that. We had
the right to work the roads under
both laws; that is to build new roads
with the convict force and to continue
to keep other roads in repair by paid
white labor as we had been doing
under the general law of 1895.
AS we thought better results could
be had by employing the convict force
with the superintendent and the ma
r.; 90 L,,,l
roads exclusively, and by keeping the
other roads in repair by paid labor
this work being entirely under the
supervision of each commissioner in
his district we elected to work in that
way and that is the plan, believe.
that is dn effect at the present time
The law of 1895 provides for two sep
arate systems of road working either
of which can be adopted by the com
missioners.
Sections 20. 81 and % provide for
levying a special tax as has been the
custom in our county for many years
Section 81 provides for an overseerl
to be appointed by the board to look
after this work at salary of $3.50 pei
day.
tHou9Tt tHCy SpcySO Law.
Now the commissioners not being
lawyers, and that part of the law CtI
1895 never having been called to their
attention, did not know that 1T wa.
their duty to appoint this cverseer
but thought that it was their duty to
attend to this overseership themselves
in their several districts. and did sol
ard rendered bills accord ngly as they
thought strictly according to law and
said bills were approved by the finance
committee and ordered paid by the
board
AS proof that this was the custom
and considered legal and proper II
have only to call your attention to the
minutes OF meeting of June 18th 1901,
at which time new board was organ
lied.
The minutes, after stating the selec.
ton OF chairman and finance COM
mittee read as follows: "The c/m-
missioners from the three country dis
tricts being each designated as SUPER
visors of roads in their respectiyeI
districts"
|. submit in this connection affida-
Wits from j. B. Lewis who acted as
foreman Of road crew in District No.
during 1902 and 4, stating that he
was not employed as overseer but was
employed as a workman; that he
worked every day and that he receiv-
ed the same pay for his work as iii = /,
others, viz; one dollar and twenty.
five cents per day and tina, the WORK
was done under the general superr:.
sion of the commissioners for that dis
trict. Also affidavit from Thos. Hast
ings. another workman which bears
cut that of Mr.. Lewis.
The point l wish to make is this |
That the board had the right Tin fact
il was their duty but they were not
so advised) to appoint an overseer of
roads at a salary of s150 per day or |
about $4,000 per year; that not know
ing the law they did not employ such
overseer but did appoint each
county commiss ,oner as overseer
in his district and that after
the sad commissioners had been sol
designated by the board and had at.
tended to this work faithfully as in
structed by the board and for which
L. MON mid IN, ho 4