The Brinkley argus., 1915-12-31

man who had served as Judge three years once before.
 beg to say that of this $3,418.30 not filed for reissue, that. he paid the attorneys one-fourth. There was | $464.95 of this amount which had previously been paid into the treas ury, so they owe the county one fourth of that amount, or $116.26.
 know that this was an honest mis-
 take upon the part of the attorneys,
 and that they will gladly refund the same.
 To say the least of it, the Judge should have detected that; and it ap- pears very careless, to my idea of a business man.
 i There was just about as much req son in giving the attorneys one fourth of the scrip that was not filed for reissue as there would be if you had 100 head of cattle in the bottoms and would offer one-fourth of those
 that were saved, and before the man got them out, forty head would walk in of their own accord; would you give him one-fourth of them?
 Now, gentlemen, you see that the county is, or will be, out over $6,000.00
 for the reissue of scrip and the man. damus; and what has been accom- pIished?
 There was not found single piece of scrip frauduIentIy issued; there
 was not single error found in the
 scrip or the record; but while it is true there were good many pieces |issued where the claim was enhanced to equal the cash value of the war
 rant. Men could not work themselves
 and teams for less than $3.00 or $2p6 per day in money; then of cour1e thsF had to put their claim in for enodgh
 to net them that amount. l don't
 think that there was ever claim
 made for more than $4.00 per day for a team and driver; I don't think that the Judge himself would have fur nished team and worked it on the road in August or September for much less than $4.00 per day.
 It was not the laboring mans fault that scrip was not worth par. Peo- pie had to use the roads; then of course they had to be worked Then who is going to work them? Why, the farmers of this county, of course, who travel them, and pay their pro- portionate part of the taxes. Then suppose that they did raise their claim enough to give them living wages; the work had to be done, and if they had received S4.00 per day it would not have been any too much.
 Tho covoo 1oxp apnliac fa oo,,y,f,v work that applies to road work. If 1t was wrong to raise claims on account of depreciated scrip during Judge Holloway's administration, it is just as wrong to do it under Judge Trice's.
 Judge Trice paid Mr J. w. Hooper and Guy Murphy $50.00 per week each to arrange the scrip for him, that he recalled job any twelve-year-old child could have done Gin fact, he ought to have done it himself). They worked two and one-half weeks, and the county paid them $250.00 Don't you think that claim was raised a littie?) 1 could have employed two girls to have done this work for five. or six dollars per week, and I believe they would have finished it in one half of the time.
 Then look at the bridge work Don't you think their bids were raised on account of the depreciated value of county scrip-as much as two or three for one? All have to say about it, if it is right now to accept and allow bids and claims when they are enlarged two or three for one, it was right for Judge Holloway to do it, at a slight enhancement.
 Now, the Judge may say that he is