The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1855-06-27
For the Gate City.


\ from keoEuk and one from Fort Madison
by subscribing $500, 900 to the stock o
each road. Again. by another msjorit,
vote, the power to subscribe the same ba
I been rescinded; and since the last vot,
i was taken. it appears that the County
Judge has subscribed 10 the stock Of thu
Fort Madison Road, the sum authorized by
the first vote. \ This is a matter Of deep
interest 10 our county, yet nobody knows
and few seem to care what is 10 be the end
OF it.
Not SO much for the purpose Of giving
as for elicillng reliable information from
others better informed, is my object in Of
lering few thoughts about the subject.
will briefly enquire:
lst. Did the last vote annul all tie pow
ers conferred by thehrst2 Is1pposs that il
the first was legal and the conditions an
nexed were bonn fdt complied with, it did
not. | enquire
Cd. Did the first vote bind the couAty
and authorize the County Judge to sub
scribe in any event? In other words, was
the proceeding valid in law2 Iregard the
FIRST proceeding as ipso faeto void, being in
all respects wanting in conformity to every
SQUAD principle OF law and justice. The
people were required to vote for or
against one single proposition. viz: 10
grant certain aid-for wha?-For two
separate and independent and unconnect-
ed objects, two cities. whose separate IN
terest in the question created sufficient
motive 10 unite them and lLus to accom-
plsh the object, but whose interests in all
other respects were, and ever will be an
tagonistic BY what principle of law or
common sense can such thing be done 7
II seems to me, thatif il can be done for
two, it may be likewise done for ten differ
ent objects, and thus few individuals may
devise scheme, and by combining hall
dozen different local interests. may carry
any sor: Of measures they please; and a
large portion of the community may be
forever involved, without any sort Of ber.
eft, for objec $. for no one of whicha ma
jority vote could possibly be ob;sined. Il
presented sing.y BY itself
We have read in Arabic story. Of the
wonderful things done by the magic lamp
OF Aladdin, and never expected to see the
like in cur day. but we were behind in
point OF progress. We have found that
they have got The vefilable old lamp in Fl.
Madison, provided, nevertheless, ,hat the
said subscription CT $500, 900 can be made
to stick.
] did not design here to argue the ques-
ton. but merely TO state an opinion, which
arose spontaneously in the minds Of the
Montrose committee, who issued an address
TO the voters just before the election, 10
which this feature Of the proceeding is
made point of objection, and described
as one conceived in s.n and brought forth
IN iniquity-involving a monstrous fraud.
colossal swi2dle," and will. reference
to this questionable shape" it was char
ged that the two cities had combin ned and
conlederated for the purpose Of cheating
the county, &c,
Il is proper to say here, that the COM
mittee never intended to charge the people
of either city with any fraudulent purpose,
not at all, but merely this. that such was
in fact and in law the necessary effect and
result Of the proceeding, as invented and
then proposed, that's, that the scheme was
per sc a fraud in law.
Lastly. As to the remedy Ii it i,
thought by anybody that the bonds ough1
not to be issued, the question az to the l.
gality of all the past proceedings may be
brought before the judicial tribunals of on,
State. and decided, 50 that we may know
how it is. But it will cost something. /
a reasonable fee can be ruised, doubt no
you can find lawyer. who win give ths
question fair trial. / respectfully sus
gest that, in my humble opinion. it is .
case of sufficient importance, o. such /,
public nature, that the authority represent
ing the county should furnish the means
and direct proceedings at law for the iria
Of the question. SD.
OPINIONS on rue LAw.-The follow
ing Jurists have given their opinion on lii,
L Prnhihitnru Linlanr Lar. t.. ia I -.