The Mena weekly star., 1920-06-24
ANTI-ROAD FOLKS
IN new EFFORT
Attempt TO Block Building of Jeffer-
son Highway in Polk County-Ihe
Petition Overruled, Goes to the
Circuit Court.

That there would be no continuance
of the hearing on account of the pro-
posed changes in the plans and spe-
cifications on the jefferson Highway,
and that the changes and alterations
as proposed by the commissioners be
approved. in brief was the decision OF
County Judge Fl. w. Finger at a
hearing in the County Court on Thurs
day. The hearing was held in the
Circuit Court room at 1:30 o'clock
Thursday afternoon, and was attend
Id bv between $50 and 275 persons
made up largely of opponents of the
Jefferson Highway and the Mena-Big
Fork Highway, known as Road I'M
provemcnt Districts Nos. / and 2.
The matter came up on the public
notice given thru The Star by the
clerk is17=as ss ss the County court. which mo-
tioe set forth proposed changes and
designated Thursday, June IL, as the
date on which the hearing would be
held.
Judge w. N. Martin, on behalf of
the remonstrants to the proposed
changes, filed with the court a petition
signed BY 6S taxpayers of Road I'M
prc.oment District No. /, setting out
the reason for opposition to the
changes. In presenting the petition,
Judge Martin asked the court to
grant continuance of 10 days that
like petitions might be circulated
thxuout the district and then filed and
presented to the court, the one filed
with the court having been circulated
only among those opponents at the
hearing.
Petition of Opponents.
The petition was as follows:
<tTu the Honorable County Court of
Polk County, and the Board of Com
missioners of Road Improvement
District No. 1, for Polk County,
Arkansas
I'VE. the undersigned landowners
within road improvement district No.
| fer Polk county, Arkansas, do here
bs most earnestly protest and object
to the proposed change in the plans
and specifications proposed, whereby
it is intended to reduce the width of
the proposed road from 16 feet in
width To IA feet for the following
That your petitioners as
well as very large majority of the
landowners within said district are
strictly opposed to the building of
said highway or road at the pres
ent time and under present finan-
cial conditions in any manner what
s0eyer.
"a. That road IA feet in width
would be inadequate to serve the
purpose for which it is intended.
50. That the estimated cost of
said road at a width of IA feet is
excessive and exorbitant and that
said road under proper management
and normal conditions could be built
at cost far below the cost esti-
mated and under contemplation by
your commissioners.
Therefore your petitioners pray
that further action in the building
of the said highway be postponed
until ssueh time as conditions may
Justify the building of said road"
Judge Alley Makes Statement.
Judge y. L. Alley, attorney for I'M
pkovement District No. l, appeared
before Che court, in opposition to the
continuanee, making a general talk
to the court and to those in attend
anea. stating that while he was the
attorney for the district he had had
nothing to do with the decreasing the
width. nor with fixing the width in
the first Instance; but he had found
that the standard width for hard-sur-
faced roads was II feet. He stated
he could see no reason why the OPP
ponents should object to a reduction
Of width The call for the hearing,
he suggested, was simply a formal
compliance with the law, and that the
reduction had been made to bring the
cost Of the road within the bond issue.
Another reason, the road attorney
suggested. for the prayer for the con-
s tinuance, was that the petitioners
were opposed to highway building at
any cost. Speaking his own senti-
uent in the matter, he referred to his
address before business mems lunch
con Ia which he advocated the patch
iuR 10 NJ lateral roads instead of GO
ing too deeply into permanent road
construction He pointed out, also,
that four years ago opponents of the
Jefferson Highway had succeeded in
stzvin9 Off the building of the road
when at that time it could have been
built at so per cent less than it will
cost now. Concluding his statement,
he said In his opinion a continuance
of 10 days would do no good for those
opposed to the highway would still
be opposed.
Object to Highway.
Joe Lewis, getting the floor, stated
that it made no difference if the road
IL 8, 10. 12, IA or 16 feet wide, but
that the people want to have a say
50. and that this was the first time
thez have had chance to have say
50. He charged that midnight legis-
Iation was responsible for the pres
enf situation and asserted he had
been told by one of the commissioners
that tbe matter was fraud.
Judge Martin said that, simmered
down, 1t meant that the petitioners
objett 10 the construction OF the high
Judge Finger, addressing Judge
A4xfin directly, asked at this juncture
4 the matter should properly come be-
fore the court or the commissioners,
Judge Martin replying that it should
be ii the hands of the commissioners
under the Jurisdiction Of the court.
The1eupon. the court overruled the
prayer for continuance, and refused
the prayer Of the petition but granted
EK@ n<uIor fnr an annnql 70 the Cir