St. Tammany farmer. [volume] (Covington, La.) 1874-current, 1907-04-20

nave answered Mr.. Roehl'S letter
in sections, the questions being set
in solid type and the answers
loaded.
coyington, La, April -, 1907.
Editor st. TammanY FARMER;
NV Dear Frlend-I am sorry to
cay that to me, at least, your edl-
torlal in the present last issue un.
der the caption, ssWhy the work is
not going on, ''is very unsatlsfac-
tory. The request of "Cltizen,"
seems to have been written calmly
and from a simple desire to know.
Whether or not the News answered
this, and if not why not, is beside
the question. AS ! understand 1t,
the work has been discontinued
simply because the contractor did
not receive payment due him. Did
not the Council, representing the
citizens, enter into a contract for
the building OF a school house?
II did; and the Council has not
violated It's contract nor in any way
made itself amenable to the, law;
nor has it INDUCED in any trickery
or subtertnge. While the work was
stopped for lack of money, the
causatlon was precipitate action on
The part of MIR. CARRIER in COM
mencing work before protecting
himself against any possible ma
bllitY of the Council to meet the
payments. We are afraid Brother
Roehl is unconsciously predlsposed
to q prejudiclal outlook, and that
his discernment IS lmpregnated,
for ssCitizen'sp request contained
ah evident slur at the FARMER.
I beg to submit that the failure
Oh the purchasers Of the bonds to
make good at this time has nothing
whatever to do with the question
al issue. Had not the building
been started, then this fact would
have been significant and would
have delayed the work. But why
was the work begun before the
money for it was al hand? Did
the contractor know that such was
INV case? II he did know this,
then did be sgree 10 go ahead with
the undertaking, and agree further
to take all the risk himself; or did
he ask for guarantee, and was 1t
given him? If so, in what form
and by whom? All of which cues
tiJns are clearly pertinent, and
are furthermore being asked
on all sides. If the slip
4 'twlxt the cup and the lip" was
not provided for, and the builder
was allowed to 60 ahead with MS
task believing he would be paid at
Tia proper time, then an inexcusa-
bic breach of faith has heen commit
ted. Was it sound business, or
was il not rather a pitifut mistake
to 60 ahead without providing for
sneh 4 contingency as has occur
red?
Failure of the purchasers of the
bonds to make good" has every
thing ID do with it, as through
them was to be derived the money
with which Mr.. CARRIER was &c
meet his expenses. There was no
agreement between Mr.. CARRIER and
slYe Council except the contract,
and when this contract was signed
MIR. CARRIER knew that the bonds
had not even been advertised fol
sale Mr.. CARRIER started the work
when he got ready, at his owl
rak: never asked for guarantee
from Council and none was given
The only statement made to Mr.
CARRIER was that the Councl
thought it would have the money
1t the proper time to pay him
Council had no idea that the con-
stltutlonality Of Act 81 Of l9o'
would be questioned. Should thi
MI he unconstitutional would Ger
tainly be no fault of the Council
aud could not be foreseen. 1t is t
BE regretted Mr., CARRIER is in hi
present pred,cament, but no san
man will contend that the Council
Is guilty Of laches IN failing +
provide for that slip " 'twlxt To
cup and the lip = which il shoul'
have been the SPECIAL care Of II
contractors 10 provide against
The Council Il supposed 70 loo
out Cor The peoples side Of II
contract. And 81 all was done j
GOOD faith and with the best of il
tentions, it seems TO US simply a
unfortunate combination Of Gu