Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1878-01-12

11\IAA NOs cS4s
little to hope from the safeguards of
written constitutions" TWoodson vs.
Murdock, % Wallace, 3s1l
THE ST. JOE CASE.
But 'Res Judicata' says that in tho
case of Barrett vs.. St. Joseph [37 Mo-,
270l. the language of the constitution
was construed. and that the court ex-
pressly decided that two-thirds OF the
qualified voters voting at the election
were sufficient to determine the question
submitted in that case. Acute and
learned as "Res Judicata' would seem
to be, he overlooked an important point
with reference to this case which occurs
to ''breiless gentleman" IN "dingy'
office. and. indeed. has occurred to
other sensible men. i. e.. the cords OIL
the act under which the election IN St. |
Joseph took place did not conflict with
the constitution. The words OF that act
followed the words OF the constitution
and were in exact conformity with 1t
The township aid act does not follow
the language Of the constitution, but is
in conflict with its language. Again.
Res Judlcata." learned as doubtless he
is in the law. forgets that the decision
in the case OF Bassett vs.. St Joseph was
expressly placed upon the ground that
there WAS no other practicable way at
The time to ascertain who the qualified
voters were. except to take those voters
voting Mt the election. But Res Judi
cats' ought to know that inim- -diately
alter this election in St. Joseph. the
iron clad registratI"n law OF 1860 was
passed, and that two days before the
township aid act was passed. the regis
tration law OF 1868 was adopted and be-
came part OF the law OF the state. Bv
these registration laws all the qualified
voters OF each count J.. town aud cilr
were required /" be regularly listed in
Il legal and formal way. SO that il
circumstances alter cases the tax
payers of the townships (disiranehlsed
by these laws) have certainly right
now to invok-. whatever benefit the con-
stitution ot I,65 may have conferred
upon them h. providing for that remark
able and stringent registration law.
WHY THE POINT WAS NOT MADE,
That the constitutional objection to that
township aid act OF 1868 raised in the
Bates county case WAS never passed
upon by our supreme court, "Res Judi
cata' admits. but he asks in loud or
oracular manner:
And why? Because the counsel who
represented the township in the case in
view of all the decisions rendered on
that proposition. from that Of Lord
Mansfield down to that OF our own su
preme court in the case of the state vs..
Binder, was unwilling topnbIish himself
an ass"
That RES Judicata" is a knowing in
dividual: this deliverance undoubtedly
shows. "Disiutercstcd' as he is. he
knows Just what the counsel in the Linn
county case was afraid of. and why he
did not urge upon the court, that the
language OF the township aid act con-
t1icted with that Of the state constitution
The counsel in the Linn county case
doubtless was easily scared, and. per.
haps, he too, toresaw what RES Judi
cata' would have thought OF him II he
had urged that point. One thing. how
ever, is remarkable. that the 'iniallIble
United States supreme court, as "Res
Judicata" would have us believe. i! his
assertion be true. published itself collec'
lively IAN ass" when it rendered the
Bates county decision. 4 "brieiless
gentleman from ''dilapidated town.
of course, does not say 50. because he
considers that decision sound law and
hopes Gas do one-haIt of the "dilapidat.
led towns and counties of this state) that
our supreme court may adopt it as the
law OF Missouri. 1t is melancholy
fact, which it would be idle now to ut
tempt to conceal, that Res Judicata
would not be satisfied, because he init
mates rs much in his article.
| LEGAL ISTENDMEST.
If the position of Res Judicata' il
correctly apprehended he holds that by
illegal intendment' the Linn county case
decided the township aid act constitution
al with reference TO point not made by
either court or counsel. In other words
Res Judicata' holds the doctrine
What Il court might have decided and
did not decide. it will be held t. have
decided by illegal intendment." This il
gated in the Cass county case BY the
United States supreme court to prote
bond holders, and if it is correct. al
| Auti-oCuu lcI III VuS
to follow the suggestion "t Res Judi
cata' and "go To rno>t in their dc.
serted villages Heretofore ) ch ha.
not been considered the law. In TACT i
has been held that nn\ IAN BE- Consider
ed binding upon court as res adj jurcA
Ia which has been expressl, decided
To cite authorities on this po mt wouit
be matter ut supererogatIon.
THE SUITE FIELD CASE.
; Res Judicata' having satisfied hi
mind that by legal intendment" th'
Linn county case decided the township
aid act constitutional does mot forget t.
: notice the Sutterfied case "a Mo.
S9ll. lie SAYS: The Sutlertield case il
positive and emphatic authority il
support OF the two cases which preceded
il. Observe the fairness Ot these "hou
orable critics. Two of them say th'
language oi section 80. article Nv. OF th'
constitution concerning the removal O
county seats Identical with the Ian
guage of section IA. article XXI. concern
ing the making of railroad subscriptions
i, This is neither moro nor less than de-
liberate prevarication, rs reference t
the sections and decisions will show
The language Of the former section is
If two-thirds Of the qualified voter
shall vote in favor of such REMOVAL tn,
language OF the latter, is. '.unless two
thirds OF the qualified voters shall assen
thereto" 1t will be remarked that un
| der the restriction touching the remova
; OF county seats it is not sufficient tha
! two-thirds OF the qualified voters "as
sent to the removal, but they "shal
vote in favor OF such removal" thu!
cutting the case off from that established
rule of construction recognized both in
England and this country as shown by
the cases.
When this fine distinction was appre
hended in 4 dingy Office" a ''briehesl
gentleman greatly marvelled. The
Foxcroit case then did not cover the
Sutterfeld case! 1t dawned upon his
benighted understanding. that that case
rs expounded by Res Judicata' was
good law in all cases where the statute
required the assent of "two-thirds Cf the
qualified voters.' but where the law