The north Mississippi herald., 1923-02-09
SUPERVISORS TRIED
ON CONTEMPT
CHARGE



Grenada, Miss, Jan. 29.-J. H.
James, president Of the board OF
supervisors of Grenada County, w.
NJ. Mitchell, county attorney, and
W. M. Dubard, who went along as
tax payer and interested citizen,
are just back from Batesville, where
they went to attend Chancellor j. G.
McGowan's court, before which Mr..
James had been summoned to appear
on contempt charges because of the
failure of the board of supervisors
of Grenada County to make certain
tax levy of q mills on the property
in the Yocona-Tallahatchie drainage
district, which district was annulled
by the state supreme court. It seems
that when the district was killed by
the states highest court, that the dis
turbing question with the promoters
of the district was, "who is going to
pay?" Naturally those who opposed
the district did not think that their
property should be assessed for
something that they protested a.
gainst and which was declared to be
invalid.
Later, proceedings were instituted
to levy the necessary tax to cover
the expenses of engineers and attor-
neys as well as others engaged. The
gentlemen from this county at Bates
vile express some amazement at cer-
tain items in the expense bill. For
example, they state that change Of
$51. shows on the engineers bill for
treating carbuncle on negro en-
ploye's neck; railroad fares galore
from Peoria, H., the headquarters of
the contracting engineers, and that
some of these fares covered trips to
Gulfport and other places. A bill for
the flesh and feathers of a duck.
which charged ownership is submit
ted, and $4,000 for Memphis at
torney.
A Mississippi firm of lawyers rep
resented the drainage board.
These gentlemen assert that it ap-
pears that attorneys were employed
with the hope of creating spirit OF
good will rather than for their legal
services. The total expense budget
was s210,0O0 to which $4,000 was
added, it appears, for contingencies.
The amazing charges of the engi-
neers, if these Grenada county gen.
tlemen understand the vouchers SUBJ
mitted, it would seem, is enough to
make those who are not already IN
drainage districts and who must OF
necessity use engineers If drainage
work is done, think great many
times before they leap.
Recent drainage laws require
either 20 per cent of land owners
owning a majority of the land, or
majority of the land owners owing
20 per cent of the land, to get
drainage proposition before the
courts and it is stated that when
these requirements are made that
the chancery judge has no discrea-
ton. A great many express astonisn-
ment that the Legislature should
have enacted a law in contracting
give any set of men, engineers or
others. carte blanch in contracting
obligations to be paid out Of public
funds.
Many of those in this now dead
drainage district state that 1t was
estimated that the initial expense
preliminary survey, etc, would not
exceed 10000 nevertheless it has
gone over five times that amount
It develops that another rather
novel thing in this litigation is that
the contracting drainage authorities
made the engineers also the auditors
of the vouchers.
The drainage law Is so framed
that chancery judge can do but lit
tie but sign on the dotted line when
those behind a drainage matter come
into court meeting legal require
ments.