The log cabin Democrat., 1921-03-08
SEES MANY FRAUDS
 IN COUNTY HIGHWAYS
Judge P. II. Prince Replies to State- ment by Commissioners of
 Faulkner Districts.
Editor Log Cabin Democrat:

Editor Log Cabin Democrat:
 l notice statement published in the Log Cabin Democrat over the names of the commissioners of the three road districts, in which they try to make some explanation.
 This road district matter needs to be explained. l will bring out some facts, with the law, that have never been published.
 The first act, approved March 1, 1919, requires the commissioners to work without pay. Everyone who does good work that is needed should be paid reasonable price for his labor and failing to provide pay is fraud.
 l find this law of 1919 requires the clerk to extend the assessment of 1917 on a book and file same in clerks office and gives parties aggrieved 10 day after filing to bring regular suit in chancery court, appealing from the assessment, which is a fraud for fail ing to give the taxpayers notice of the extending the assessment and benefits and the filing in the clerks office. The taxpayers did not know anything about the right to appeal and sue, and again the act of 1919 winds up by declaring that the said commissioners shall not be responsible for any wrong they may commit, as commissioners, which is shame and outrageous fraud.
 The commissioners failed to make and file plans and specifications with cost of construction of the roads and have the county court to approve the same, which was fraud upon the taxpayers.
 The construction of the roads went to sleep in the spring of 1919, until ln January, 1919, the second act, ap- proved February 7, 1920, was slipped through the last convening of the Brough legislature The commission CTS say it was not necessary to give notice, but notice was given through the Log Cabin Democrat. In this they are mistaken, as it was a local and special act and the constitution re- quired 30 days notice, not by the "Cabin" saying the bill would be in- troduced. The notice means to print and publish the bill in full, so the tax payers could know, and failing to give such notice was a fraud upon the tax payers.
 In this act it says the benefits have been ascertained to the amount of the construction of the roads, plus 50 per cent additional, which statement was false and a fraud. Everyone knows there has been no plans, specifications and cost of the roads made. In fact, there has never been a valuation and cost of the construction of the road made.
 It was fraud to keep covered up from the taxpayers the extent and ef- feet of the act of 1920
 The little suit brought and carried to the supreme court was done to take the advantage and if possible to prevent real suit to set aside the fraudulent act of 1920.
 When they went to the county court with prepared order of the court, that went on record 20 of the court. August 18, 1920, and failed to file and present plans, specifications and cost of the construction of the roads, it was a fraud and in reality renders this order and judgment void. The parties getting up this judgment tried to cover m the matter.
 There were three different judg- ments, one for each of the different districts, but nowhere do they attempt to show what the roads or road would cost, just says they want Sl,260,000 in bonds bearing per cent and $126,- 900 in expense money, making $1,- 386,000 levied upon the lands in the districts to be paid in 20 years, and if they have not enough, then county court shall levy more. There is nc end, and the same judgments order the bonds dated back to June 1, 1920, two months and IS days before the bonds were issued, giving in interest at 6 per cent on the bonds S16,800, in violation of their own law, which only allows 6 per cent on the bonds from date issued.
 This is another fraud which the pur-