Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1877-12-01
THE TOWNSHIP BONDS.

The history Of iata. cite county sine"
he war hl. been an unfortunate one
Blessed with the lest soil ~ earth, a
Ss.ubyiuu- climate. and An intelligent,
Industrious ami genial population. the
first wears ri peace brought with them
not deeds uf peace and fraternity and
Owe, but i code which DISTINGUISHED the
best blood of the county and placed The
control ur it, affairs in the hands OF the
srum. boiled to the top by C!vl. war
The mouths al the tax payers wee
closed. ihc mouths OF the tax eaters
were open. wide and gaping. Their first
grand opportunity WAS whrn thctemptin2
hiit ut railroads was offered. Schemes
Tor vNtort!ng from the people nearly
one million dollars worth ui bonds for
ta!ity-tnrcc or Tour miles ri road and
Il hotel tor rocks We're step by step car
rird out. Then township after township.
the owners OF the property being unable
~ vote. were by the voices OF a minority ct
the people and Il wotully small represent
tltion ct their property. plcdS" to the
payment of debt, which would have teen
ouerouS. even though value had been re
crivci for them. Cheated. wronged
and ictraruici BY mcouIpetency and DIS
honesty the people Wrr" asked tu pay
these debts. They first said that they
/ would not: hut on sober second thought.
seeing that benefits had been obtained
IL some directions. they agreed to 81 Ger
tan compromise on their county bonds.
and to another certain compromise on
their township debts, pending decisions
regarding their validity. Finally n judg-
mrnt came from the highest court IN the
land the supreme court OF the
United States. Not 1 Judgment by Il
bare majority OF the nine. As was falsely
reported. but 4 unanimous opinion that
toy stated reasons the township railroad
aid act vas unconstitutional, aud these
reasons Were principally based upon Il
particular Missouri decision. o what
have We \ decision b. the am court.
consisting this time o! bat eight judges.
~ judges dissenting that the town
ship railroad aid act is cuns,tutlOnal.
and the maia prop OF the last opinion Is
the same Missouri case which first Al
toricd an argument for m opposite CON-
c~!usion. Could anything be more tarc!-
cal? Could anything. rejecting upon
the high position which the supreme
couy should occupy IN the hearts and
minds OF the peOp.e. be- more sad When
the news OF this decision first reached
and together. Since thar time. as vii!
be seen in another column. one township
has determined TO act promptly. and
nai set her foot down firmly The COM
" coutt. which viii meet next Monday.
vii. act as firmly. Ii j. no Ambrose
court, but a Pratier court. 1t i not =
court willing TO see the county's debt
grow week hv week, mcath by month
And wear b. year. but Il court made up
Ut honest men, firm IN their deternina-
lion not only to give their time and
talents TO the unravelIng Of the tangled
k.ut, ut our county tinauria! dllfcu.-
ties. but ready and willing To represent
the sentiments OF the people when made
known IL them. The grca, difficulty in
the way has generally been 10 secure
. united action In his Instance let U-
seq il it cannot be done. There are near
iv forty counties Interested in this bond
matter. Let orr people make haste
Slowly Tor a while. Let us see first ii
We cannot get 4 favorable decision in
oar own case nuw before tie state su-
prcme court. ant! then. in any event. let
u tct with those other counties which
have been wrongri in the SAM way.
Inr idea that the>- township bonds will
ever be paid, no matter how many
iAyurab.- decisions nay be rendered on
them. !, L chlmera. II haliucjnation. a
united people has time after time SAID
that they would not pay them. except a.
they might Choose to 10 -, not accord
in. anything To their justice. Who is 10
compel them? Who is to purchase their
property ordered sold tor the judy
ments? Wi. the hondhn!der, do il?
|: not. who vii. have the temerity to d"
more in their interests than they dare
at,empt Themselves?