The Mena weekly star. (Mena, Ark.) 1904-1977, 1920-06-17
BARNEY THOMAS
MAKES STATEMENT

MAKES STATEMENT
To The Mena Star:
Much has been said publicly by way
of criticisms as to my resignation as
Representative of Polk County. In de-
tense of my reason for same feel that
through The Star l should be permit
ted space to answer some of the gem
tlemen who are responsible for the
above charges.
Judge Wear, referred to my Re
signation and DR.. Bakers Maneuvers
while at Little Rock" as autocracy
equalled only by Kaiser Bill. Mr..
Shinn. said that Barney Thomas re-
signed and Baker was appointed" is
evidence that it was the intention OF a
few to force the burdens on the many
without a chance for the majority TO
be heard.
had nothing to do with the ap-
pointment OF DR.. Baker. I resigned in
favor OF no one, sent notice OF the
same to the paper that the people
might be put on notice that the place
would be vacant did not resign for
posed to the Big Fork road were in
the majority. nor was it because
thought those favoring the road were
in the majority, but the reasons were
that Mr.. Green, who was intending to
help Mr. Higginbottom in the bank
while / was away. could not be here;
neither could Mr.. Higginbottom de-
vote his time TO the bank as his bust
ness demanded his attention at the
time and he tHigginbottom) was the
only one left who could do the work
necessary to be done at the bank
{. Those are real reasons for my resig-
nation.
! The Attitude Of Both Parties on
the Road Question.
Mr.. Cooper. Of Nnnley, came to me
and asked what recourse the people
had in the matter OF defeating the Big
Fork Road. / advised Mr. Cooper that
if he could with a petition. and some
representative who was in favor OF the
project. satisfy me that a majority OF
the land owners affected were against
she road that | would let them know
before | went TO Little Rock that I
was against the introduction OF the
bill. Mr.. Cooper told me that a petit
ton was being circulated taking both
those for and against the road Later
those favoring the road came to me
and advised them likewise, that they
would have to make a showing by q
majority of the land owners petition
ing me that they wanted the road.
They felt that the time ~as short,
which was only few days prior 70
the time the Legislature was TO con
vene. but they. too. made a canvass
OF the district and said further that
they were ready TO make affidavit
that all names on their petition were
land owners in the district effected and
! that same was = majority OF the land
owners In the district as shown by
the tax BOOKS FOR the county.
Judge Wear and Mr.. Cooper brought
the petition for the opposition and ad-
mitted TO me that they were not sure
that all names thereon we're In the
district, as they did not know what
the boundaries OF the district were.
never compared petitions. In fact
never opened either. but the attitude
OF the two parties led me TO believe
that those favoFfng the road were in
the majority Whether they were or
not I am not prepared TO say, but il
does seem TO me that the petitions
would be the only criterion to govern
the situation now. and at the same
time determine whether or not DR..
Baker acted as representative or a
Miss"
Judge Wear and Mr.. Cooper further
advised me that in the event / found
the petition for either road In the
majority 10 pass both bills, as that
was the wish Of the people both In the
Big Fork and Cherry Hill Districts.
In conclusion: felt, and do feel yet.
that the people have q legal moral
and constitutional right TO be heard,
and for this reason I expected OF both
opponents and proponents of the road
that they satisfy me as to how a ma
Iority OF the people telt. and as said.
without making a comparison, aid, in
my mind feel, that those favorfng
the road were In a majority. And from
! my point OF view feel that II I am 10
be criticised by either side OF the
question, II would be those whom |
forced to the trouble and expense OF
eanvassing the district and securing
names OF the parties favoring the
road.
Respectfully.
". B. Thomas.