Mexico Missouri message., 1910-04-07
JUDGE CARTER.
Replies to The Letter of s. J. Bovine.


that has arisen between us in refer
ence to the office of County Highway
Engineer, in so far as my part of it
Is concerned, permit to briefly reply
to some of the questions asked in
your recent communication as we'll as
enlighten you in reference to some
facts that you are either ignorant of
or wilfully miscOnstrue.
You say there was nothing in my
communication of March II that was
obnoxious. Then it is readily drawn
from your own statement that you
are looking for something that is OBJ
noxious. By your signed communi-
cation you also admit just what 1
have believed to be your reasons for
your most recent activities, namely
a personal grievance against the
members of the County Court and the
Highway Engineer and your state
ments make it plain that you would
not stop at unfair tactics to bring
about their humiliation.
Your inferences-and as such you
have cleverly tried to conceal ul-
terror motives-are hardly worth
replying to and but for the fact that
you possibly might not know of
what you speak is the only reason
that prompts an answer from me.
will advise you that the County
Court can not call an election to
abolish the Office of Highway En-
gineer and will cite you to Sections
1851 and 1851, Laws of 1909. You
openly say that Mr.. Wakefield has
done as well as anyone could have
done. Then why, in the following
paragraphs, do you accuse him of
squandering the peoples money?
Come out from under cover and be
in the open.
The cause, to my mind, of your ac-
tivity in this matter is answered best
by your own statements and is the
grievance that you hold against the
County Court and the Highway En-
gineer for their failure to appoint
you as road overseer of Lawson dis
trict in 1909. While not a member of
the Court in 1909, yet l have
familiarized myself with the records
in the matter. Now as for why you
were not appointed. The records
show that you were road overseer in
1907. In 1908 you filed your petition
FOR reappointment. The records also
show that a petition was filed Febru-
ary, 1909 which reads as follows:
To the Honorable County Court of
Audrain County, February term 1908:
We, the undersigned citizens and
voters of Lawson district No. 63, of
Audrain County Mo, pray your hon
orable body to refuse the appoint
ment of S. J. Bovine, Jr., as road
overseer for said district for the
reason that said Bovine is contentious
and inclined to stir up strife and dis
satisfaction in said district.
The above remonstrance was signed
by nineteen good citizens of said dis
trict and is the only case in the en-
which a remonstrance with such a
charge was filed against the reap
pointment of a road overseer.
But you say that you presented a
petition to the present Court signed
by thirty-five of the forty-one tax
payers of the district, asking for your
appointment in 1909. The records
show that six of your signers of a
total of 33, were not residents of the
district. What about the nineteen
that signed the above remonstrance
the year before? Not one of these
names appeared on your petition. The
same conditions existed then as the
year before and in view of the fact
that your settlement has been entirely
unsatisfactory prompted the Court in
trying to select a man that would be
free from fractional stress. That
their action was right is apparent
from the fact that Mr. n. l.. Dysart's
re-appOintment as road overseer this
year was not objected to by a single
taxpayer in the district except S.
Bovine.
Since | have said that your settle
ment was unsatisfactory to the Court,
desire to speak as the records show
to be the facts in the matter of your
Compromise with the
County Court" These records show
that in your annual settlement the
Court refused to allow you various
items to the amount of S324.26 as fol-
lows: Telephone messages 45c; reg
istered letters 21c; Surveyor $500;
Fry & Rodgers $500; p. H. Cullen
$500; P. H. Cullen, attorney fees,
$4,000; Fry & Rodgers $4,000; Clerk
fees $SS.60 p. H. Cullen and Fry &
Rodgers $4,000, attorney fees. Total
S324.26. These are the items that the
Court refused to pay. You appealed
"and when the case was called for
trial. the County Court took me up at
my proposition and paid me what l
asked" $324.26? No, the Circuit
Court records show that you re-
ceived not what you claimed was due
you in your certified statement at the
time of your settlement, but the sum
of $2500 and the Court paid the costs, .
to $1110. Here is your
selfadmitted statement Of the fact 1
that you endeavored to secure from .
the PEOPLE, $2SS16, that by your sug-
gestion for a compromise, you openly .
admit you were not entitled to re- /
ceive These are the facts that are
found in the Court records and are
subject to your or any one else's in /
spection. Are these not sufficient .
reasons for your not being reappoint-
ed road overseer and does it not eX-
plain, to large degree, your
grievance against the County Court2
And now in conclusion, l want to
hurriedly reply to several of your