The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-04-22
Commission Authority

Some points are raised in the reply filed in behalf of Chairman Rogers and Commis- sioner Suttle of the state highway commis- sion to the bill of citizens in Greene and Sumter counties who seek to enjoin the con- struction of what is known as the Gaines. vile detour,'' which it will be to the interest of the people of Alabama and the state to have solved
 The first and most important of these points is the contention that the commission is not subject to court control. It is all legged in the commissions reply that "the de- termination of the feasibility of any route for a public road is>a judicial act, the de- termination of which is vested by law in the state highway commission" and that "the location of roads by the highway commission 10 judicial act, and not subject to control of the courts" If this claim is based on law and fact, then the people of Alabama have no appeal from a decision of the state highway commission, whether or not that decision meets with their approval and is beneficial to the state or any locality in the state. It is we'll to have this point settled. once and for all. It is certain that the people do not desire to place such au- tocratic powers in the hands of three men, entrusted with the responsibility of spending millions of the taxpayers money and of constructing highways which are expected to serve the state for all time.
 The commissions reply also denies that there was any agreement between Commis- sioners Rogers and Suttle to further their personal interests in advocating the Gaines vile route, which means a detour of seven miles, and does not follow the route approved by federal engineers. Nevertheless, it is a fact that Chairman Rogers and Commis sioner Sdttle own property by or near the nroiontad GaiDosvilIa 1s hn >e Mir. Rogers. It is stated that his home at Gainesville and about 160 acres of land is the only property owned by him which is near the proposed road. and that the bulk of his land, 1000 or 5000 acres, is five or six miles from the road" It is not denied that Commissioner Suttle owns land in Dallas county near the projected road.
 If, as claimed, the two members of the highway commission, Commissioner Scruggs dissenting, have no personal motive in ad- vocating route which passes by or near large parcels of their land, the burden is upon them to show that such is not the case by proving beyond any question that the Gainesville route is the more feasible. It is admittedly not the most direct route.
 Still another point raised is that those portions of the bill of complaint should be struck out which charge that when the $7O00,000 bond amendment campaign was in progress there was an understanding that the money raised for road construction would be spent under federal supervision, thus in suring the people against reckless and waste full expenditures and that representations were made to this effect by Chairman Rogers The commissioners claim that reference to campaign promises is impertinent and irrele- want However, such an understanding did exist and such campaign promises were made, and they helped materially in the sue cess of the bond election. Is it impertinent for the people to ask if pledges made by public officials are to be dismissed as rrele. want and impertinent, when it does not suit the convenience of these officials to carry out the will of the people, 3S and-Dist out the peoples will ?-Mobile Register.