The Weekly Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, O. [Ohio]) 1861-1???, 1868-02-21
oUR POSITION ON THE COUNTY
.E SEAT CONTEST.

OUR POSITION ON TIE COUNTY
.tf SEAT CONTEST.
The remarks in the JcuRNAL of last week
regarding tho impropriety of further liiga'
ton Oh the County seal question has clicicd
acrimonious ficlings from somo two OF three
persons in this place. One of the parties
representing Bowling Green interests, the
others Perrysburg Tho prcjudiccs Of
these gentlemen havo SO far trumphod
over tboir better judgment as TO cause the
wihirawel OF thoir patronage. OF course
wc are griovod at the calamity but in n
business sense, can say 'wo yet live and
propose TO continue alive. However, we
win lost 40 futbor on that operation, but
simply state Tor the Information of tho tax.
payers at large in this county tho position
We occupy in this contest case.
IL is we'll known tliat tho Pcrrysburg
JpuRxAL has bocu tue political organ aud
representative of tho Republican party
from its Rrsl organization When fully
represented at thu polls, il presents ina.
j,rity of over 900 votes. Now il is cvi
IDENTITY tto province Of The Journal TO
represent the interests OF tho whole county
over which tho constituency are scattered,
rather than to advocate morcly tho local
interests Of any one or moro parts Of this
county.
L. e a, ~ ,,I
justice to Bowling Groom, wo view it as
question which belongs TO, and must be
determined by the taxpayers OF tho county
at large, wlioso interests and will, must
bc the law in the case. We only repro
Scut Perrysburg or Bowling Green in this
matter, to the extent Of their common
interests in the county at large,
Az the question now stands, with tho in
ncton dissolved by the judgment of the
supreme Court, il appears to us AZ very
doubtful policy 10 continue the suit pend.
ing on tho validity of The vote cast in favor
of removal, Tho spirit of that act and the
intention of tho voter will rs surely do
tormino tho question in favor of Bowling
Green, on tho same basis as tho legality OF
doubtful clauses in the enabling act, have
been rendered valid by the decision recent
ly delivered at Columbus. What folly
then to continue further litigation, when
the cost Of such suit must como out of the
pockels OF tho tax payers. Tho poor
tarmers aud working men in this county
are already growing under the burdens of
taxation without having this further addi.
ton. Oh thesog grounds, and in behalf of
tho tax payers Of Wood County, we urge
the stay of further legal proceedings aud
the consequent prevention of u largo bill OF
costs, Tho solution of this local question
now dovolves on the County Commission
ors. By their action in the promises, n
conclusion may be reached, which, if not
satisfastory TO both perrysburs aud Bow
ling Green, it will at least bo satisfactory
to the Taxpayers in the county at large, TO
whom the Commissioners are responsible
for the proper discharge of then duty,
The plan we suggest ia that we advanced
last week, viz; that the Commissioners
employ competent Architect to furnish
suitable plans for county buildings, ut
Bowling Green, with proper specifications
aud an estimate of cost. When such plans
are provided, let the citiEons of Bowling
Green state the AMOUNT Of donation they will
guarantee, If such donation prove adequate
tho n IA ~
are contemplated by the enabling act, aud
required by tho growing interests of this
county, that must inevitably end the matter
II the cost of such county buildings prove
larger than the donation rendered 10y the
Citizens OF Bowling Green, then let the
Commissioners bring TO vote of the poo
pie, the question Tor, or against, levying a
tax to pay the balance of costs. The re-
suits of that vote would furnish surc in
diCations Of what they should do, aud
would finally determine this fruitful cause
Of division aud sectional strife.
BY prompt action OF the Commissioners
the question could be determined at til,
coming spring election, and should til,
vote prove favorable TO the tax, suitabl,
buildings could be erected during III,
summer, and the removal DO thus effected
in the fall ! until that is done. tho law pro
Vides thAtthe county business shall con
tinue TO be transacted al Perrysburg, TIL,
Fifth Section Of the enabling act, reads as
follows
"That in case a majority Of electors il
Said county Of Wood shall vote for re
movar as heretofore provided, the publ
business OF the county shall continue t.
be transacted in the buildings now oeeu
pied for holding court, aud FOR other count
purposes, until suOh time as Nes BUitu
ings shah be erected at tho new seat @
justice as prorided by hS'
BY the same rule of law, applied by tn
Supreme Court in hs decision OF tho in
junction case, that is he spira and iHtea
of the act. The Commissioners have no al
Tentative but 20 proceed as provided b.
law, 10 erect new buildings adapted to th
business OF the county. Until that is done
there eau be no removal.