The Pascagoula democrat-star., 1909-05-21

rsss sseas sfs lss ss<s ses ~
s.lsssss s<sssssf ~ lte ssfssls sssff .
fsfH ssf fntlAss isf4s. 80 <sfs erf
sl.ssFEs sasfssf sss - s@<sssHe< a.
mssts4 lfsssfsf - ff4sffef - ls<f
eus sss ssn f.flss aiitfe<, shsss
sfs 49, fsH<s - e<<<<sfe<s ~ 80
f4s4t<s st4s&g sst~ff ir<s< I1<s<s,
<hi~h secs ssff fsste - leees srs
ssss ss<sss I. - f.hfls ~stt<fsl s<ss
ssss ssf ssrNssf sssssst ~ fss'
r<fssssss N lNs fsrsss - sht<t ~
f<sss smtfsss. fsfsfsi<s n saf ssssf
isveHssnss - mistt hs,s rssssas
wm ~ sstssts ff@s<e ssrl~s ~ ihe
easefs ~ fsssssn ssssfs. shy. Z.
memhss N ~ fH<fs n sspsfsissfs q
M fssssss m@si'ss. lws. ~ sssss -
si6~ VI pslmsr ssisss n fN a.
aassty ssflief fes tsffssmlss ssove
ssssss. shsn the isw ssss h>fey~ ssch
silsssres Asa ~ NETS sbfse msmhefs
N ihs hssts msss msss . psfssesi 80
smiassicn snf seftifs und@s esfh shss
sueA dates hsss hres r@sfesmeds A
p~ssssi N me risus~s N me bsssd dces
sos siseioss fbss there ~ss fhe seruifed
assss fspofs. ssssAsd ~ ossh, ~ three
msmb~ss N me byssd dsiv sppo,nsed
tbsrefor. s~fcss shs sfiows0ce NJ eossty
suaisoss salary wss made " Mr. hsI.
rss wspifastiv the sIiovsnce wss
m sde withsst en- essmInstion. o. the
essmiasslon not In sccosd with the
facts. viii he please sspIsin why, ~
member N the hoard, after employees
MI tnei Wright ss fosd ommissionsf,
road engineer, or whssevef title you
please 10 give him, he permitted Mr..
Wright 10 enter upon discharge Of his
duties without hrst requiring . good
and solvent bond for faithful perform
snce ~ hIs work. viii Mr.. Roberts
deny ~ IL fact that whom Nj. Wright
! fsw the coop and mp 10 Ming of the re-
port of the "rscenr srsnd Jury, all the
I board Of supervisors bsd 70 show for
! the tt65 paid Mr. Wright and his help
/, ers was dim little line Of surveyors
stakes scattered along the public roads
; no field notes, no profile msp. The
; reasons OF Mr.. wrighrs failure TO con
time and complete the work for which
y he was employed IL MINISTERIAL In this
discussion, and was not considered OF
Q mentioned In the report Of the grand ju.
ry. Contrariwise, nothing can be read In.
10 that report criticising employment ol
I Mr.. Wright, Of that we had nothing "a
0 say--results were what we condemned
8 Personally, however, believe the
o scheme is one OF merit, and properly
carried along will rebound in good. as Z
d correct profile map would be OF use fol
a present ~ we'll ~ future work and
Q reference. II was the careless methot
l. OF the board Of supervisors st which oul
: criticism was directed.
I do not hold Mr.. Roberts SOLELY re
sponsible for this action OF the board,
i do not parsphrase the board with hi
j estimate Of the grand jury; believe
j. mem bers Of the board thought they
Z were doing right, and that their erro
i was Of the head and not OF the heart.
I'll As to the sixteenth section funds,
repeat again, and again use the word I'd
o visedly, the board has been, In some in
n stances, careless In scrutinixing col
b lateral offered. The law, as Mr.. Robert
,r properly says, fixes the methods Z
d loaning these funds, but certainly put
p upon the board, % managers and Gus
X todians thereof, responsibility Of ssein
ID that collateral offered carries sufficieu
IL margin to protect the loan. In AL cal
Of dor, gentlemen, can you show : clei
IL slater Will your collaterals in Il
10 treasurer's portfolio bear the scrutin
OF the average business manf
g That report speaks for itself, ar
lg needs no apologist, but the ingeniousl
~ worded letters may cloud the issue, pc
IN vert the facts, hence this reply that Z
9, may stand out clear cut.
~ / am somewhat surprised st cover
= personal attacks on me, for years cor
=; sidering both gentlemen my friends, IN
p what l have written here is not wit
BY any spirit or revenge or animosity.
H. G. HERRING,
n Foreman "Recent" Grand Jury.
is Moss Point, Miss, May l8, 1909.