The central record. (Lancaster, Ky.) 18??-current, 1910-05-06
Reply to School Trustees

hep,y to Scnooi trustees
Two weeks ago l wrote card in the
CENTRAL RECORD for the purpose OF
explaining my action in resigning
from the School Board Ct the Lancas-
ter Graded School. and not for the
purpose OF provoking any controversy.
The trustees have seen fit to answer
my card and assert that a statement
made by me might be Misleading to
the public.
think an explanat' on of the facts
will show that my statement was cor
rect and the answer of the trustees
mis-leadiBg:-NOt Intentionally so,
hut because they do not understand
the tue state of the record, as l
Judge from reading their answer l
think it would he of benefit, both to
the public and the trustees, to state
fully the facts in the ma. ter so that
all may be fully enlightened. Three
years ago was elected School Trus-
tee. Thereafter Lewis Y. Leaveli
died and left will with the following
clause therein. for the benefit Of the
Lancaster Graded Common School:
Il will and beQueath the renal ,der
of my estate In trust for the benefit of
the Lancaster Graded Common School
! (white) and direct that the Garrard
County Court shall appoint three men
as trust eeS to invest and manage said
fund. Said men must be of high NOR
al character and good financial ability
and give bOnd for performance of their
| duty and may be paid reasonable
amount for their services if they so
desire. The earnings of this fund
shall only be used for each years ex
penSeS of said school, provided, any
| bonded indebtedness now existing may
| be pail out of it. Reports Of tru> tees
every two years shall re made to said
court and recorded. The court shall
appoint and fill any vacancy that may
occur in said bOard.'
j. J. Walker, G.. A. Arnold and my
self were appointed by the court under
this will and are now acting as trus-
tees under the will.
1t was thought best bT US to invest
this money in land as it was a perma
nent investment and the will gave us
the discretion as to how we ShUuld in
vest the money. We purchased the
Elliott farm for about $4,000, and
the same is now rented for So 800 for
the current year. At the time we
purchased this Elliott farm we be-
lieved that we would have enough
money to purchase the Hudson farm
which lies near the Elliott farm Mr..
Hudson cheerfully, if not generously,
consented with us that he would let
us have his farm merely because it
seemed to fit exactly the money we
would have. He did not desire to sell
it, but merely consented to let us have
it for this reason. He further con
Sented that we could take it or not as
we pleased, and if the money was not
suffi lent, we need not take the farm
In other words, he left it to US as to
whether or not we would take advan-
tage of the contract-a concession
dare say, that few other men in Gar
rard county would make to US. 1t
turned out, however, that we would
lack some $1,000 Of having enough
money to pay for it We relieved
that bY buying the Hudson farm, We
would not only have ii safe investment
but we could make the fund earn
81, 900 per annum more i'm the farm it,
vestment than otherwise. 1t also de-
velOped that there was some doubt as
10 whether the trustees of the fund
should cxpend the earnings of the
fund, or whether they should be ex
pended by the trustees of the school.
1t was therefore thought wise to
bring what might be termed friend
ly suit to determine the questions in
vOlved, tOwit: First, whether or not
the trustees of the fund were author
lied to spend $1,000 of the earnings in
Oruer to purchase the HndsOu farm,
which we believed splendid invest
ment. that would have yielded II per
cent. Second: whether or not the
trustees of the fund or the trustees of
the school should expend the earnings
of the fund. Both Of these questions
should have been settled among high
minded men without the usual ami
mOSitieS and antapOniSmS that arise
in the ordinary law suit. 1 have no
doubt they would have been so settled
had it not been for the Cross action
filed by the trustees of the school.
The trouble about my card and their
answer is that they are TALKING about
one action and was talking about
another. The results as stated in
your answer as to the litigation on the
original action were personally salts
factory to me. II we had no right to