The Birmingham age-herald., 1916-06-24
BOARD WILL BUILD TWO ROADS ID THE WARRIOR AT ONCE Controversy Settled by De- ciding to Finish Up Both
 of the Projects BIG DELEGATIONS
 BEHIND THE BOARD One Will Be Let to Private Contrac- tor and Other Will Be Built by the County's
 Convicts

The resolution of Lawrence Pennington calling for the issuance of county war rants to the amount necessary to con struct the proposed highway to the War rior river was adopted by a three to two vote at yesterday mornings session of the board of revenue. Rufe R. Bivens and pr. R. F. Lovelady cast dissenting votes, stating their reasons therefor in addresses. Lawrence Pennington Hugh McGeever and Major Cameron voted for the resolution.
 pr. Lovelady, in his address, stated that he did not think the matter of the resolution had come up in the proper manner, in that all the members of the board had not been apprised of the fact that it would be offered, and that the first intmation he had of it was when he saw it in the paper. Rufe Bvens made the statement, saying he read the resolution as printed in The Age-Herald
 The Chamber of Commerce committee on the Warrior highway was present at the meeting of the board.
 Rufus R. Bivens offered an amendment to one section of MT. Penningtons reso- lution, proposal to immediately call for an election on the matter of issuing bonds, saying if it was true that the people wanted the road to the Warrior they would vote for the bonds, and the money would be available within 90 days. The proposition was voted down, 8 to 2, Dr. Lovelady supporting Bivens, and the other members of the board voting ad- versely.
 Mr. Bivens, in his address, enumerated number of obligations to be met by the county which the proposed issuance of warrants will affect. He said the total amount of obligations which had to be met was something over $5O0,o ,o0o
 Mr. Bivens said he was not opposed to the road, but that he was opposed to the method by which MT. Pennington's S resolution would build it.
 LOVELADY'S VIEWS
 Dr. Loveladys address, in part, fol- lows:
 Tn the first place. the first time I saw this resolution was in last nights S paper. It strikes me that the expenditure of so large an amount as this should certainly be thrashed out by a full and free discussion with the board. I want to say that I am not opposing the river road, but I want it distinctly understood that I favor a different method of going about it. I don't think that any organi- zation of business men could afford to spend that amount of money until it had been fully discussed by the c>sctors. I think that is fair. I don't think that is casting the slightest reflection on any member of the board or his views l would like to be accorded the right by the board to differ with any member and to give my reasons. I would not like to be placed in an attitude of opposing the proposition because I differ on the meth cd of carrying out the enterprise.
 "In the first place, the taxpayers have got to take care of our expenditures, and they are being asked for more money now to carry on the government, and I want to submit as my proposition that we extend to them the opportunity to say whether they want to spend this money or not. I don't feel that I can answer for them. I know it has been said that a number of folks agree, and want the road, but I think it should be left to all the people. I know most of you gentlemen are interested in the freight rates as well as in a highway. I think know that, because I have talked with you gentlemen before. I asked Mr. Musgrove his opinion as to traffic by mo- tor trucks, and he said he did not think it would pay. I asked MT. Ramsay, and if am not mistaken he also said he did not think it would pay. :
 Would you gentlemen use your own money to build a road, or bridge or any other thing with no more prospects of it's being proftably used than we have of this proposed road being prOf1tably used? Would you enter into a proposition to furnish transportation with truck from here to the river with your own money if you thought it wouldn't pay?
 q don't believe that it is right to put the county in debt when it is already in debt and can't see its way out. Gentle men, if I know anything about the con dition and prospects of the county we will in eight years be in the condition of the city if we continue along the lines here proposed and advocated. We have tried to be progressive and at the same time keep out of debt, and I believe that is good business. If you make ar engagements for money, it ought to be along permanent lines.
 PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE
 The constitution requires that the peo- pie should decide when large expendi- lures of money are to be made, and think that is reasonable. You can't bor- row money on bonds without submitting the proposition to the people. We are not allowed to assume that they favor bond issue I don't think it is asking too much of you gentlemen or anybody else to allow the taxpayers of this county to have chance to say whether they want to expend the money or not. You can do that in not exceeding 90 days. You can call an election in 30 days, and, to say the least you can have an express sion of the taxpayers within 90 days. Take the city of Rirrningham. what do