Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1879-02-15
OUR COUNT Y COURT AND THE
TOW NSHIP BONDS.


county Is involved. The court was
prompted to this action by various rea-
sous: Ffrs t, that Lafayette county has
a larger to wnship debt than any other
county IN uie state. Second. that many
prominent citizens of NJ county have
brought th matter to the attention OF
the court, and there has been consider
able talk with some as to the ACCESSIBILITY
OF buying up these bonds at a small
price. Third, that If a defense is to be
made at all, now is the time, from the
fact that the U. s. supreme court has
once decided the township bonds to be
void, and at another time to be valid.
Since these decisions our state supreme
court has decided all township bonds to
be null and void. Another case Is now
before the U. S. supreme court and will
probably be passed upon next month.
This decision will forever decide and
put at rest the legality of the township
bonds 80 far as the q. s. courts are con-
cerned. If the U. s. supreme court fol-
lows the decision of the state supreme
court, we will never again be troubled
with the bonds; but should the court
decide the bonds to be valid, we will be
vexed with suit after suit and q conflict
between the U. s. courts and the state
courts. and the latter may at some day
be brought to concur with the former.
as our state court is NOT a unit in its de-
cision. Our county court has been in
formed that the sse soon to bs passed
upon by the U. S. supreme court wal
taken up from q county which has COM.
promised all its township bonds, a v
those involved in this judgment, which it
is believed have been purchased by the
bondholders, who are interested in a
decision in their favor, which will affect
all township bonds in the state. Of
course, under these circumstances, that
county will not defend the case; and our
county is as much interested as if 1t were
on n OF our township bonds.
There is also a case now in that court.
based directly upon a Lexington town.
ship bond. 1t Is known as the Kirkbride
case and involves many points affecting
all our township bends. This case was
defended by Mr.. Graves in the o. S.
district court, and his brief Is we'll worth
q per usal.
The county court is the agent of the
people. It should at all times closely
watch the interests Of its constituency,
and has, therefore, by and through the
advice of many citizens. none Directing
to the importance of the defense, en-
ployed attorneys to defend all cases af-
fecting our interests in this respect.
That the court could not have employed
attorneys better qualified to discharge
the duties devolving upon them is well
known to the court and the people. as
both are familiar with every detail of
these suits. both having been elected
and served a term as county attorney,
and both having been directly or indi-
rectly engaged In every suit brought
against the townships upon these bonds.
We therefore think our county court
acted wisely in selecting Messrs. Graves
and Young to defend the suits in ques-
ton, and believe that the bar Of Lexing-
ton will agree with us-not because they
are better lawyers than the others, but
because they have given more attention
to this kind of business.
As to the fees, the contract allows
5000 as a certainty, the attorneys paying
their OWN expenses, including any as
s,stance which they may employ in
Washington. In addition to this they
are to receive a contingent fee of two
and one-half per cent. from the town.
ships interested, according to the amount
Of their debt. This contingent fee. it is
not expected they will be able to collect.
as it is entirely optional with the lndi-
vidual taxpayers to pay or not to pay
their proportionate part. The 5000 fee
IS taken out of the funds Of tho different
townships in proportion to the amount of
their debts. This fund has long been
on hand. and the court, we think, right
Iy concluded that it could be better
employed in defending the townships
interested than to have it manda unused
from the hands of the treasurer int the
open maws of the bondholders. Had
our county court allowed these cases to
be decided against the people. without
a defense. and q judgment rendered
which would fasten upon US this enor-
nous township debt, it would ever be
remembered as a court false to the inter-
ests of the people Of the townships which
looked to it for protection.
The river and harbor appropriation
bill, ordered reported to the house, con-
tains the following appropriations fer
the western states: Removal Of snags
ETC., from tho Mississippi river, $780,
900. Removal of snags, etc., from the
Missouri river, $50, 900. Removal of
snags in the Arkansas river, $50, 900.
Ohio river. 5000. 900. Improvement of
the Mississippi between the mouth of H.
LIMOS and Ohio, 5000, OOO. Improve
nlent of the Missouri river, above the
mouth of the Yellowstone. $25, 900.
Improvement of the Missouri river, be-
tween Council Bluffs and Ohio, 1926 900.
Improvement of the Missouri river be-
tween Eastport and Nebraska City, $685.
600. Improvement OF the Missouri
river. at Atkinson. 100000. Improve
ment of the Missouri river at Sioux
City. $4,000. Improvement of the Mis-
souri, river at Fl. Leavenworth, $40, 900.
Improvement Of the Missouri river at
St. Joe, $4,000. Surveying the Mlssou-
ri river from Its mouth to Sioux City,
Iowa, $25,00O. Missouri river near the
Kansas river. $50, 900. Snag boat for
the Upper Mississippi. $40 900. Missis-
sippi river from St. Paul to DssMoines
rapids, $1OO. 900. Mississippi river near
the mouth Of the Illinois river, $40, 900.
As means of preventing the spread
OF the plague, Gen. Melikoff has pro-
| nnsed IN tho oovarnoro ot p,oh..