The independent. [volume] (Oskaloosa, Kan.) 1860-1874, 1865-02-04
County Lines.

Aho PoiSsSa0us 0Aoiss VI Po'"oo VI
the citizens of Douglas county to seize
upon q portion of Jefferson. has few
parallels. 1t is simply = covetuous de-
sire, without any show Of right. and
can be defended on no grounds Of rea-
son. justice or good neighborship. The
only plea So. up is. that Lawrence has
made some OUTLAWS on roads-princi-
pally If not entirely in Leavenworth
county-on this side of the river. aud
therefore she ought to have part of
Jefferson county ! Who ever heard of
lawrence doing any thing of the kind
not Immediately for her own benefit :?
II she built roads it was because her
citizens believed it was for their interest
TO do so; and they never invested dime
in road, except for an Interested pur-
pose; and they have ten times ovef re-
eeived principal and interest for every
cent they have thus expended on this
side of the river.
But Ne have Q counter claim TO this
ples. It is this. The citizens of Law
renee have taken wood and lumber from
Jefferson county in value thousand
fold more than all the outlays on this
side Of the river in roads and every thing
else; and this wood and lumber have
been taken without rendering an equiv
alent 10 this county. These are the
facts. Let them be kuownl
Another claim set up is. that por-
ton of this county IL convenient to
Douglas! Indeed! Ifshis plea is worth
any thing. it is worth oil the State. and
Kansas may ~ we'll be annexed 10
Douglas at once as by piece-meal; for
every time she extends her boundaries
she viii lay along side Of contiguous
territory, which it will be convenient to
get hold of. This is worse than q rob-
ber's plea. 1t is the very essense of
bad neighborship. Such . principle
carried out would Danish peace from
society and nations forever, and SCI,
communities at law and nations at war
II We have q piece of land and choose
TO pu. our buildings. for our own COME
nienee or profit. on one edge Of the land.
does that give US q right to seize upon
a portion of our neighbor's possessions.
simply because they are contiguous?
The thing is SO absurd We wonder any
sane man should advance such a theory;
and yet this is the strong argument
Douglas men offer for seizing upon our
territory. If the river. Gods own line
of division. is not stay to their greed.
what other line can present barrier to
their rapaeity +?
II Lawrence makes . bridge for her
own accommodation and benefit, and
taxes our citizens enormously for pass
ing over it. she claims Tor this right
70 usurp ownership over portion Of
our county! Nagnaninous Lawrence !
What . spirit of unsel6sh enterprise
her citizens possess
Lawrence has had ten-fold more aid
from the east than any other place iu
Kansas-more than al the rest of the
State together: and yet she claims sps-
eial privileges! A portion Of her citi-
Gems want all: and if they had every
thing they would still ask for some
thing more!
This whole matter is in nutshell.
The territory belongs to Jefferson coun-
y. We have kept it 10 its infancy at
our expense. We therefore haze . just
claim in right and equity to it. Doug
las has none. The river 10 natural
boundary. therefore the best one. We
simply want our rights and good neigh |
borsbip. nothing more.