Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1910-02-15

N' ol l1iiu Ill tIe ulStflCJ. ACCOr- hey Coleman, however, declares that the commissioners have extensive land holdings in that territory.
 G. E. Lytle, secretary of the Board of Commissioners, acted as spokes- man for the board. He stated that in view of the fact that the property owners seemed to have no specified reasons for their objections, the com missioners would not agree to cease the work or discontinue their iat- tempts to sell the bonds or incur ob- ligations longer than heretofore tee 90 days agreed to in writing. Judge M. A. Austin, representing the land owners, propounded the following question to Mr. Iytle: Twill you or your board agree to let the proposi- tion rest until the next meeting of the General Assembly at which time a bill could be introduced, amending the present bill so as to conform to the wishes of the land owners?' Mr. Lytle said he would not bind himself or any of the commissioners with any promises, in substance intimat- ing that the provisions of the act the protests of property owners, who seemed to have no stated purpose other than just to object. He de- clared that he wanted campaign of education and that after the land owners thoroughly understood the act and it's many beneficial provisions and then if the majority of proper ty owners in the district were not in favor of drainage. he would not force it on them.
 Attorney F. G. Bridges spoke for harmony in the matter and made an effort to reconcile the property own- CTS to certain features of the bill or to agree upon such amendments that were feasible.
 Attorney w. F. Coleman, author of the drainage bill and counsel for the Board of Commissioners, spoke for more than an hour in which he dis cussed and defined the many legal features included in it. He asserted that the Board of Commissioners was composed of honorable men and be- lieved that the property owners were unnecessarily alarmed. He said the board was mot there to exploit you, but if you have any objections to any one or all of the commissioners he wanted the objections known, with possible view to replacing them with other men who might be more satis- factory to the property owners. He asked the question direct, but receiv- ed no response.
 Judge M. A. Austin, counsel for the protesting property owners in the district, took issue repeatedly with MT. Coleman, reviewing the many le- gal features of the act and stating that it's provisions delegate the un- limited taxing power to board of directors named in the. act after wards appointed by the county judge. practically leaving the power of taxation entirely to the discretion of one man. He said that if the act was declared legal there would be political scramble for the office Of county judge never before eXperl- enced in this state He appealed to Attorney Coleman and asked him r he. the good friends that they were, would leave the taxing power or ms home with him (Judge Austin. MT. Colemans reply was that the bill linn it's a taxation of not exceeding 6 per cent of the betterments in any one year.
 R. l.. Elliott, of the protestin , delegation from Wabbaseka, Ark, dis cussed the demerits of the bill and the possibilities of the wrongs, he said, it gave an oportunity for.
 Major w. J. Parkes, of the firm of Parkes and White, engineers for the district, made a lengthy statement eX- blaming the district, it's formation, it's territory and it's many benefits. He said in the original plans the building of a levee was intended in certain parts of the district to prevent over- flow from the river, during high wa ter. He also told of the proposed con- struction and maintainance of two pumping stations of great proportions When asked how the pumping sta tions were to be maintained he re- piled ''Why, out of the taxation, of course.'' He said these pumping sta- tians could be eliminated, however reducing the cost to less than fifty per cent, when a MT. Ferguson and W. H. Langford arose and declared that they were not willing to subject themselves to the possibilities of this