The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1919-11-29
COMMISSIONERS WILL
SPEND THE COIN

and, IN fact, freely discussed IN the
county that if the bond issue-now
proposed-carries, the moneys will be
expended under the supervision of the
advisory committee to the board of
county commissioners and the board
of bond trustees.
This report is misleading. and as
one of the many who are opposed to
the issue of the bonds because of the
unwarranted waste of funds in build
ing roads in the past by the board of
county commissioners. l have had my
attorney advise me in regard to this
particular matter, his letter being as
follows:
In reply to your inquiry in rela-
ton to the duties of the trustees and
the advisory committee, as to the con-
struction of the roads if the bond issue
carries, have to advise:
1. The advisory committee con-
sisting of Mr.. Munroe, Mr.. Mayo, Mr..
Blowers and others, have no powers
whatever, except as delegated to them
by the board of county commissioners,
and of course this board could not
delegate any of it's powers, and the
committee is therefore advisory only,
and as / understand was selected to
lay out, or rather point out. the best
routes, and the proper places to build
roads. They have nothing to do with
the expenditure of the funds. nor the
construction of the roads.
2. The bond trustees have no pow
ers except as given them by the sta
tue; these powers are to receive the
funds and hold same subject to the
orders of the board of county COM
missioners; they receive from the col
| lector the moneys collected as taxes
under the levy for retiring same. and
are charged with the duty of investing
this money from time to time; they
/ neither have charge of the road con-
struction, nor do they pay for it; this
is left wholly with the board of county
commissioners. This question was
discussed in Suburban Investment
Co. VS.. Hyde, 81 Florida, 800, and the
court there discusses the powers and
duties of the board of county COM
missioners, holding that the such
board cannot delegate its authority to
the trustees. The court said:
"The requirement of Section 796 of
the General Statutes of 1906 that the
proceeds from the sale county bonds
shall be paid to the trustees of the
county bonds to be distributed by
them for the purposes for which such
bonds were sold. and for no other pur-
pose, does not give such trustees any
power or duty with reference to the
construction or improvement of the
roads,"
The court in the opinion further
said:
"Eyen conceding it to be the legis-
lative intent that the trustees shall
retain the custody Of the money dis
tributed' to the purpose of the con-
struction of the hard surface roads,
while the work is being done, it is
their duty to pay it out on proper
warrants drawn by the county COM
missioners, and it is plainly not con-
templated that the trustees shall con-
troll or regulate the construction Of
the roads,"
This it seems would make it plain
that the trustees have nothing to do
with the expenditure of the money,
and that this lies wholly within the
province of the board of county COM
missioners.
8. I, therefore. am of the opinion
that neither the advisory committee
nor the bond trustees have anything
to do with the construction of the
roads, nor the expenditure of the
money, and that this is purely func-
ton of the board of county commits
sioners which they cannot delegate to
another. Yours very truly,
Fl. M. Hampton.
1t seems to me this ought to settle
the question that the money, if voted
for, will be expended by the board of
county commissioners, and with their
past record in construction of roads,
l feel that the great majority of the
people of Marion county will vote
against such unreasonable expendi-
lures for such roads as we have had
in this county for the past ten years.
Yours very truly, Walter Ray.