The Lexington advertiser. [volume] (Lexington, Miss.) 1904-1985, 1929-10-17
Supervisors Refuse
To Halt Jr. College
Bond Issue Protested

hearing set for Saturday, October
~ at 10 o'clock relative to protests
made to the board of supervisors against
the issuance of $125 100000 in bonds for
the building, equipping and otherwise
improving Junior College at Goodman,
! was made with V. Reinhard, president
of the body presiding, and J. R. Brown,
Durant ]. H. Rogers, Thornton; Jesse
H. Walton, Acona, and T. j. Brown, Ebe
nezer, in attendance.
E. T. Nelson, local attorney, repre-
sented D. E. Cade and others, protesting
the issue. The matter also attracted a
large number of taxpayers who were on
hand at the hearing.
W. R. Ellis, president of the Junior
College Board of Trustees; Supt. M. C.
Mcdaniel, of Holmes Junior College;
and P. H. Williams, county superintend-
ent of education of Holmes county were
also among the ones present.
In presenting the protest to the Board
of Supervisors, Mr.. Nelson based his
charges upon illegality and named the
following charges:
THAT the petition presented contained
/ the names of no taxpayers otherwise
than poll, and did not represent a 10
per cent as required; that the election
did not specify whether the school was
for white or negro or what race; that
no record could be found on the school
board minutes relative to the Junior
College and acted without authority as
the Board of Supervisors should pass
said resolution" Mr.. Nelson also re-
quested the Board to rescind their or
der and to consider the election null
and void.
G. H. McMorrough, attorney for the
Board, together with H. H. johnson
made statements to the Board relative
to the matter and in answering Mr.. Neil
sons statements, Attorney McMorrough
stated as follows:
"The Board passed the order calling
for an election at their September meet
ing, and under the law could not rescind
an order passed at a regular session
| That any protests must be filed upon
notice of valuation of bonds and that
the Board had no right to pass upon
any question of legality. 1t was mat
ter for the courts to decide. Relative
to college for white or negroes, that
this matter had been decided in school
matters upon previous occasions upon
which appeals had been made That the
Board had acted upon a report of the
| election commission of Holmes county
who had given the results as majority
and that their authority was legal. In
regard to the petition that was pre-
sented that the Board had no reason
to doubt the suffrage of the taxpayers
whose names appeared, as no protests
were made at the proper time question
ing their status. 1t was also shown
that the law applicable to the spe-
cific action"
/ Mr.. johnson stated that the Board
was acting only in the capacity of a
body empowered with duties that did
not allow them to act as a reviewing
board for any arguments as set forth
and could only pass on the status of
the matter as they were being asked
calling election and ratifying the re
suits of voters as prescribed under law
The legality que4tioned was not in
their power, to decide, this being mat
ter for the courts
Mr.. Nelson in his rejonder stated
that the matter was an effort to con-
ceal the truth and that the facts existed
that proved the matter was being done
illegally in procedure and could not
Dc idtilleu ny tHc bOdIu ne TelJeTdleu
that Board could rescnd the order if
upon investigation they found the ac-
tion was not according to law.
The Board went into conference and
postponed their decision until they
could consult another lawyer, P. P
Lindholm, who was chosen by consent
of both factions, who upheld the action
of the Board in all matters relative to
the issue.
After dinner, the Board reconvened
and rendered a decision to allow the
bond isue carried as voted by the county
in the election held September 20. The
opposing sides have the privilege of car
rying the matter into the courts, it was
learned, if they desire to continue the
opposition.
1t was learned that the local banks,
of Lexington, The Merchants and Farm