Commissioners Delay Appointing New County Cop, May 7, 1923

No County Cop to Watch Road Traffic. . . County Commissioners Defer for Month Action on Electing Successor to Smith

Another month without a County traffic officer is in prospect as a result of the failure of the County Commissioners in regular meeting Monday to elect a successor to Traffic Officer G.W. Smith, who was advised by Board at the April meeting that his services would not be required longer than for the month of April.

Mr. Smith himself was before the Board to ask for a recommendation stating that he had made a good and efficient officer or, if there were charges against him that they be presented in order that he might have opportunity to refute them. Mr. Smith also wanted to collect $20 for a still captured and destroyed by him, he claims, while in the employ of the County.

As to charges against Mr. Smith, the Board did not seem disposed to present any, though there was a report, mentioned by Chairman of the Board Burfoot, to the effect that Mr. Smith had made an arrest when he had not authority to do so and when he appeared to be under the influence of liquor. There was also some compliant that Mr. Smith knew too little about a motorcycle, and that repair bills had been unreasonable; but the chief reason for dispensing with Mr. Smith’s services seemed to be the opinion that the County could get along without any County traffic officer. Chairman Burfoot recited the fact that at this time few of the counties appear to be employing such an officer, Wake County, for instance, having discontinued employing one some time ago.

The sentiment for no traffic officer was not unanimous, but it was finally decided, without the taking of any formal vote, to defer action until next month, so as to give popular sentiment on the question a chance to express itself. If the question were left to a vote of the people, there would be no County Traffic officer, said one of the commissioners.

As to the question of paying Mr. Smith for destroying the sill as claimed, it seemed to be the sentiment of the Board that Mr. Smith was employed on a salary and was therefore not entitled to this special fee. However, after considerable argument, the bill was paid.

From the front page of The Daily Advance, Elizabeth City, N.C., May 7, 1923