The log cabin Democrat., 1914-05-02
PIKE ROAD MUST AWAIT SPECIAL ACT PRESENTLAW INEFECTUAL VlLONIA HIGHWAY DISTRICT COULD NOT NOW FLOAT
 BONDS.

Because the present highway i'm. provement district law has been held by Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell X .Loughborough of Little Rock, whose approval is required of practically ev- cry bond issue in Arkansas, to be de fective, the movement to build the pike road from Conway to Vilonia will have to await the passage of special act by the next legislature, which meets next January.
 Road Commissioner w. K. McHen. ry, President C.. L. Hawkins of Ar kansas Holiness College and other cit izens interested in the proposed road, were here yesterday and discussed the matter with a local attorney, who ad vised them that it would be imprar- ticable to attempt to form a district under the present general law and
 furnished them with a copy of the Little Rock attorneys opinion fur nished recently to Commissioner R. c. Dye.
 The promoters of the road, while disappointed that the improvement must be delayed are not discouraged and believe there will be no doubt as to the eventual success of the move ment. The proposed road was survey ed by engineers of the state highway department about two weeks ago and estimates, plans and specifications will be completed within a few days. The opinion on the present highway law is in full as follows:
 Hon. Reuben G. Dye, Commissioner of
 State Lands and Highways, City: Dear Sir-ln response to your re- quest, whether our firm could approve bonds issued by improvement districts organized under the highway act of 1913, We regret to say that we cannot. for the following reasons:
 l. Section 39 requires that 25 tax payers residing in the county shall sign the petition for the charter Sec tion 46 requires that the charter shall not be approved until indorsed by 9 majority of the legal voters residing in the district, and that no tax shall be levied unless approved by the ma jority in value of the owners. It will be seen that there are these prerequi- sites: 25 taxpayers must sign, the ma jority of the legal voters and the ma jority in value of the property owners must sign.
 The hearing, however, provided for in Section 5l, is only to determine whether majority of the voters have signed. There is no way provided in the statute for determining whether the 25 parties who have signed the petition are taxpayers residing in the county, or whether the petition has been signed by a majority in value of the property owners These questions must remain forever open and uncer tain.
 2. There is no way prescribed in the statute to determine whether the majority in value of the property owners have signed In our local i'm provement act in reference to cities and towns, and in all other acts on the subject with which we are acquainted, it is provided that the last county as sessment shall determine. This stat ute, however, furnished no criterion. It may be the county assessment, or 1t may be the actual value of the prop erty or it may be the value required to be set opposite the name or the owner when he signs the petition, and possibly there are other standards that might be suggested. No one, therefore, can be sure that he has got a majority in value.
 3. Section 58 of the act authorizes the commission to revise the assess ment of benefits at any time. In all other acts dealing with the subject that we know of, it is provided that in case bonds have been issued the total amount of assessed benefits shall not be diminished on any revision. Un- der this statute the commission could reduce the assessment of benefits to a point where they would not pay the bonds. While we have the greatest faith in the integrity of the commis- sion, and while it is likely that it will always be composed of honest men, you cannot expect capitalists to invest their money in bonds, the payment of which must remain at the option of others. Yours very truly,
 ROSE, HEMINGWAY, CANTRELL
 X IOUGHBOROUGH