The Philippi Plaindealer

Where Does the People's Money Go?

Editor Plaindealer :

I some time since penned your paper a communication over the signature of a "Tax Payer." asking that the records of Mr. Brown and Ice, while they were respectively Prosecuting Attornays for the county of Barbour might be looked into, to see where the sink hole of our county expenses was "One Who Pays Taxes:" hailing as he says from Elk City, which in fact, was written in Philippi comes to the rescue of Mr Brown before a charge is made against him, (guilt needs no accuser) but tries to dodge my inquiry and to cover up the incompetency of Mr Brown by attacking Mr. Ices Legislative record. This only shows that Mr. Brown and his friend cannot sustain his record. Hence the attempt to keep from public view the facts which are now of most interest to the tax payers of the county. What has any vote Mr Ice gave in the Legislature to do with the office of Prosecuting Attorney? Why not attack the record of Mr. Ice for the two years he was Prosecuting Attorney? Had Mr. Ice's opinion been acted upon in the Legislature the State would have been saved $20,000 in the prosecution of Auditor Bennett, who Mr. Ice said would be, and was acquitted,

Mr. Brown and his friends ought not to mumble at "Yankee shows," as it is well known that Mr Brown neglected the public business entrusted to him to cripple others.

What the tax-payers now want to know is the record of Mr. Ice and Brown while they were respectively Prosecuting Attorneys. Mr.Ice was in two years, and Mr. Brown has or will have been in 4 years. Mr. Ice had only one vote in the Legislature and is responsible for no action of that body. But Mr Brown is alone responsible for his acts while Prosecuting Attorney for near 4 years, and is or should be, responsible for any waste of the people's money. "One Who Pays Taxes" tries to get Mr. Brown out of his short comings on the plea of ignorance coupled with the denunciation of the law under which the indictments should have been found, as they were found under no law, and Judge Brannon so decided.

Our grand jury law is so plain that even a novice or school boy in law, should not misunderstand it. and a man like Mr. Brown who could have misunderstood its plain provisions should not ask the people for their votes again.

"One Who Pays Taxes" is very ignorant of the law if he thinks the quashing of 89 indictments didn't cost the County anything, for if he will examine the records of the County Court as we have done he will find that it cost the people of Barbour County over $1,700 to make from 108 to 110 indictments and to sustain about twenty out of that number. He is also mistaken when he says that Judge Brannon decided that the indictments found at the March-Term. 1875 "were good in form". Judge Brannon did no such thing-but I will state for the benefit of "One Who Pays Taxes" just what he did do. The County Court quashed all the whiskey indictments for defects appearing on the face thereof, or, in other words, for informality. Mr. Brown not knowing any more about law than he did about preparing indictments, appealed from the decision of the County Court, and Judge Brannon affirmed the decision of the County Court, as to their informality, as will appear from examining the records of the Circuit Court, in the case of Haddix vs The State.

Facts from the record cannot lie and any one that has any doubt about this willful waste of the people's money, can learn the facts by examining the records of the County Court of Barbour county.

Yours &c.,
TAX-PAYER.