The Newark journal., 1912-01-05
INDEPENDENCE COUNTY
 VS. PEARCE
Batesville. Ark.. Dec. 26. 1l


 in last weeks Guard, headed, "Inde- pendence County vs. Pearce, mean ing, of course, Gull. Pearce, in which you pretend to give an account of the matter of facts growing out of the case which was disposed of in the chancery court here on Saturday, Dec. g, 1911. and as this account of yours is so far and different from the real facts and truth of the case, that thought you would be willing to give me space in your paper in which to correct the mis-statem9nts of that article, as am assuming that your paper (the Guard) wants to be fair and frank with the voters of this county, and that you do not want to garble up and mis-state facts, which may be favorable to your choice for any office. Certainly a news paper should be neutral and fair enough to deal frankly and truthfully with its patrons and readers.
 It is true that Judge Pearce present. ed and had allowed special account which he claimed for services as road commissioner of Independence county. This account was for S322 and was presented after he had been in office about Is months, and after he had been defeated in the primaries for re- election. 1t was said to be flor services that he had rendered extra of his du- ties as county judge as road commis- sioner. This account was allowed by a special judge, who was appointed by the governor to hear the case, and I am told the appointment was made at the instigation and suggestion of Judge Pearce.
 An appeal was taken from this al- lowance by me, as taxpayer of this county, to the circuit court, as the law allowed, and upon full hear ing and argument of the law of this case, the circuit court, Judge Jeffery, disallowed this account and held that it was not legal charge against the county and could not be sustained, and why? First, because the legis- lature of 1905 had expressly abolished the office of road commissioner of In- dependence county, and there was no such office, and could not be. Sec ondly, if this had not been done, as counsel for Pearce contended, owing to some technical defect in the law, then in order to have a commissioner, he would have to be elected by the quorum court, and that brings me to the next error in your statement of the case.
 You say that Judge Pearce was designated and appointed by the quorum court to perform this extra service of road commissioner, and that they afterwards also allowed him pay for same. Such are not the facts. and the records will not show to be the case. The truth is that the quorum court knew nothing about Pearce acting as road commissioner, or that he was purporting to assume to act as such, and never knew any thing about his going to, or expecting to charge the county extra for his supposed service which he claimed to have rendered, and did not know of until after he had already presented and has his account allowed by the special judge. After he had drawn the money, and more especially, after l had taken the appeal from this allowance, and he saw the illegality of the matter so plainly, he then tried to bolster up his action by having the quorum court pass resolution en- dorsing the action of the county court in allowing this claim, and I am informed that this resolution was prepared by Judge Pearce himself for the quorum court.
 l, therefore, say that Judge Pearce was not authorised or instructed by the quorum court to do this supposed work, and again, the quorum court, as such, has no authority to allow ac- counts or claims against the county, and it's action in trying to make valid the action of the county court in al- lowing this illegal account was clear ly invalid and void, and the circuit court so held.
 Judge Pearce was at this time, and had been drawing his regular salary of $500 per year as county judge His duties as such required him to look after the roads of the county and oversee the overseers without any ex- tra pay, and more especially after the Act of 1905, he could not draw sal ary as road commissioner ex-officio, when that office had been abolished and without any directions or author ity from the quorum court
 Section 145s of Kirby's Digest plainly says, that the county court is prohibited from allowing to any officer any fee or allowance not spe- officially allowed such officer by law, ;,, no aoca clo o II .C,r4,..,.a:..~