Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1872-07-24
THOSE
The County Attorney Rises to Elk
plain.

The County Attorney Rises to IGx-
plain.
In our last issue we called attention to
the fact that the County Court had made u
new issue of bonds to the extent OF 80, 900.
We characterized the act a. II wrong and out
age upon the people Of the coun ty. After
reading the lame apologies for the court, put
forth both in the Register and Caucasian,
and max ing 4 thorough IN yesti"ati0n OF the
matter. we prcSist in ~denouncinS the act In
the SAINT severe terms. The bonds were Is
sued and sent forth In comparative secrecy,
and in direct and known violation Of an ex-
press law. which prohibited their issue. and if
this does not imply guilt upon the part Of the
Court. and the preparation of gross wrong
upon the people, then we cannot conceive OF
any act that does. If the people permit such
acts as this to pass without earnest and i'll
d'-nant rrhuhr. they might a. We'll ut once
deed their lands in fee simple to the County
court, pack up and Leave the county.
suppose by SOM: 0Iroi m~u"ayeneat these
bonds had been registered. That tell tale
paragraph i'll the Republican wouldn't have
- tai'a :. f'"'Hf 'lll llstNtD DUH I'LL
lied L" the already immense Liabilities of the
county "dt"at tie kno.cieiy. grfhe p,opls. sqre
Il .f.r "h" c."t i"|,r.Sf.i Il. tie gab. After
THIS ha'i been done, how long would 1t have
been before The Court, So j.,.inVa If Tie lamar
""f cF.'it # o"r c2nNiy, would have felt il a
duty I" Issue Sih.on more in bonds. to meet
more ac"ruin" interest on the ..GuIf." Bob
FAIL or some other equally important en-
t"rpri>e. There i no telling to what extent
th" rr"pl" Would have been involved.
Mr.. Hall. the attorney for the Court. claims
10 have held Il consultation with a number of
leading citizens Of Lexington and the
county. If AL those mentioned had approved
the ari. and urged the Court I" ISSUE the
bonds. il would not have Affected our opiiI-
ion. We would hay. been none the les re-
iucilEt i'll exposing aud ~,icnounrin" the
Court for 4 plain and palpablr, collation. oflaw,
however numerous and Respectable her ad-
Fi'cr>. l'ut from personal inquiry. we are
satisfied that none OtliIe>c citizens advised
or urged The issue Of the bonds. The County
t"urt had made a bliHirr i'll not lrNyiny
sufficient tax upon the townships last fail
to meet the ar"rIImy Interest. This interest
had o be net. or the paper IF The county
would 90 I" protest. Tho people were in no
condition Ia >lhii I to enforced collection on
short notice. Here WAS Il trying dilemma
for the Court. brought ai,uut by Der W
p~rcli"L> h%lun,lcr. The persons referred to
suggested that the required amount of
m,u,, Ia. Lnrr,,. h,,, ,,,, -,
' ""' Nv
'''' '"" "' >"ht "'"'i ic>"rt
y -. a., -, |, 81 ,.., r.aI ia. - l.,l 'I'l.,.
WIS i, nrrr->i,N I,r such Il course. even if
,n,. ne, l.,.l ,,.,n I..e,, E,,ry mn, o,r.
- 49,,
H"""> 'h'' 'tc ih"''l '""'" nave Doeh on
taii'''i without the u" "i bonds. Hul II III
the opinion of the Court h"n.!> had Ia he i>-
.urL -, ,uIl,,rr,I. WHY mn, H.. TIA. Srn INN,
''' wv W. u %'p'oo
I'"'i'l> already deposited IN The LcAinS-
tom savings Ha.h: These were the bonds
which rhat i,.nL ,,,.,rrJ,n hnlI -. >,.r,u.i,,
,,., wni,, o.. u.r II,
vi" '"' ''s = II ""''' II ''i'''> Vi
t!c h:iih ki."W WoHl he N"rthiv>> III Ii =.
In proof oftl.i>, and To- rcl,u, the inference
~ w ,
'"'' ="
III" "ilhtI treasurer. we 'i'i'hi below
certificates from the bankers, upon whom
,I, ~ .,, ,,r I,- ,.u ,Lr.vr.
"N '''"> - $500
-, '.EN'N',i"N. ,"iH -,'i. 49,. -.
ms u 'ri,''H' .n't .i"'n' " i-'n"i
'"n: , '"M't 'ti'iu" '"'':
.'Nl'-''" 'IniN y" r'"m u y
til' Later II i'i'- "H' III W." i"rk rltH
:" .lr . ,n,n.,. l,,nI' =. ,"IIr,,nr,t .',', ,,r'
ty. Alta timr the Treasurer hail Deposited
with lis ~ one ,li"t>aild dollar hoiId>.
WHEN !, n'' III wv" in'"i,l "''','"'l> l1it'u
hand. Tn,.,r w,r,. lin. LnnI, ~. n%u...Irt
To- receive. and in fact did receive eight Of
'h'ii'. ON or a"""' t'r Isl "l jay. ""ih
,I,nmi i..i,n.e amy urw ,n,,riy Lnr,Is nor
wnuli we haIy. advised /, had We been CON
%>,l'r'i. but should haN" adNi>''l I" t!l' "oE-
u"H. 'iiAiN'NN' ''>"'''.
~ N'!"N '.uf.iTi' -
or. date! July Eta, lS... aud Published in
tn" aIt"a>Itn OF The 2ni'. >i=n"'i 10y u>."h.n
.aN.n /. ."n,"f.!Ih ~ ~
1uiIir,I f., lui,Ir,I the public, a. w.. had no
consultation with any uIIc about i>>uiII.. ci1.-
'rm LAFAYETTE county o"nd>.aiid iii'i ~ ii"t
nav >'.' :, ','' WIN" =, - ~. @ 49, ,h. r..
publican. The. statement that We required
county h"n"-I- collateral security WHEN we
'"l''.t 1t! az. III ', ," ,,,, :.
When nnrljr,! 10 by f.. Marshall. in June
49,. for i loan 20 Ia" c"inty, We declined Il
II dl'' not >'It IL. iinWrIcr. !iit We :r'r'i
r,rmir,I ,rr 20 wn, in ,.n,imfy hou,I, ,,rm nm
hui,i> H. collateral.
MORRISON NI""!
To give greater force I" the above c"rtiii-
cafes. We would state tia; Nj. John W. "ad-
dell. President Of Lexington savings Bank.
had in hi possession L copy OF the law which
prohibits the County Court from i>>ulin.
bonds beyond 10 per cent. of the taxable