Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1879-02-22
THE COUNTY COURT.

township of our county, 1 found that there had
been several articles in the Register and Senti-
mel, severely criticiZing the action OF the county
court in employing Mr.. Graves and myself to
defend the township bond suits, and the same
course has been pursued IN the last issues Of those
papers. The manifest eXage erattOn, the evident
unfalrness, and the glaring Misrepresentation
in their articles, ought to be sufficient In them
selves to prevent them from receiving any con.
slderatlon. They demonstrate that the writer
Tor writers) thereof IS actualed by a spirit Of
fault finding and Spite, rather thun a desire to
promote the public welfare.
However, lest some persons might be misled
by the erroneous statements and unjust COM
ments contained in those papers. 1 propose, with
your permission, to give a plain, unvarnished
statement of the whole case-to present the facts
to the people SO that they may judge for them
selves, and reach a conclusion unbiased by
prejudice and unswerved by favor.
Let me- preface the statement by = short re-
view of the situatien-by a glance at the con-
dition of the debts OF the townships. Taken al
together. the township debt of the six indebted
townships, principal and interest. amounts to
about five hundred thousand dollars. Interest
is accommodating at the rate of about forty-hve
thousand dollars II year. Suits are being brought
anu judgments obtained in the United States
circuit courts, at every term, against some OF
the townships of our county. The bonds are
falling due, and in the course of a few years the
debt of the townships will be absolutely appal-
ling. 1t is q matter Of fact that ne case involv-
ing the validity or these bonds has eyer been
before the United States supreme court. In which
a full and complete defense has ever been made
in behalf of the townships. The latest decisions
of the Missouri supreme court hold these bonds
to be void, and the law authorizing their Is
suance unconstitutional. The last decision OF
the United States supreme court holds the bonds
to be valid, and the law constitutional. but the
decision of the state court Is Later than that of
the United States court. The great question to
be decided before the United States court, Is
whether 1t Will follow the decision Of our ow n
court or whether it will adhere to its former
decision. This is not the place nor the occasion
to discuss that question, which Is strictly a legal
one. If we get a favorable decision in the
United States court it a. once and forever, with
out further trouble or expense, wipes out our
township debt, and saves to the people of the six
townships. IT one stroke, half a million dollars.
May we be forever preserved from the calamity
OF having an adverse decision rendered In
these cases, for, however wisely some of ouI
self elected counselors may talk of the impossl-
Ibi!lty of collecting the judgments of the United
States court, it will be u calamity indeed, anC
those who have had the most experience i'll thest
matters, and who have heretofore worked sue.
~cessfulIy against the collection Of such judg.
ments, dread such an event above all others. 1
is also apparent that the first decision In tn,
United States supreme court rendered in any
case involving the constitutionality Of tn,
.stownship AID act.' Will forever settle tn,
status of nearly all of our township debt, Anc
that We are consequently as much Interested ii
that decision rs il our county was II party to thu
record. Our county is, perhaps, more Target,
interested than any other in the state, and 1t Ii
of the first Importance that this case should mo-
! he suffered to go against townships by default
There had been an effort made to induce the in
debled counties to act in concert in the defens,
of these and other debts. The effort So far haa
failed. The danger was that each county woult
remain inactive. anu rely upon some othe
county to fight these cases. and that no deiens
W ould be made. This was the state of the cas-
waen The county court met at the Februar,
{ term. A. D., 1879.
l made u proposition to the court to defen,
these suits on behalf of the indebted townships
for q retaining fee Of $500 to pay expenses. an,
a contingent lee of three per cent. on the amour
defeated. 1t seems that some time prior. Mr.
Graves had made a proposition to defend thes
: suits. What the terms were l do not know, bu
I had been informed that the court had decide
| moi +, accent his proposition. 1 had been so In
formed before 1 made nv proposition. Now
se.ms that the court had not fornalIv decide
. IN reject hls offer. and Mr.. Graves. NOT knowin
!. INT what 1 wa. irving 10 underbid him. land I
a Tam | must confess il had such appearance Rt
4 little angry, and proposed to defend the sui,
for 5000 and two per cent. contingent. and the
S stated to the court that if 1 came down to h
: figures he would fall still lower, until he woul
do it for nothing before 1 should have the cast
While the court had the matter under consider
alton. Mr.. Blackwell, the prosecuting attorney
j. made "A speech to the court, in which he took ii
II ground that while he thought the suits ought
be defended, and 1 was perhaps the most suit,
ble person to employ. vet he held that the coun,
J. court had no authority in law to employ alto,
news TO defend township suits, Whether Nj
~Blackwell's opinion is correct or not, Is mere]
a question of law and cannot be PROPERLY dis
cussed in a newspaper article. suffice it to sa,
j the court. rtter considering the matter for Sc,
A eral davs. and advising with other disintereste
ATTORNEYS. came TO the conclusion that thew hs
% the authority. and thar thew not ONLY had the al