Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1881-11-12
THE DAVIS RAILROAD BOND CASE.


OF public interest, Of the gravest import
auce 10 the County, and shoulq conse-
%ouently be discussed without pique or
feeling. In this manner we propose to
treat it. In order to be entirely fair-
that 1t may not be said we strain any
word or sentence to make it subserve
our purpose-we print on the first page
the answer of the county Judges and
Col. Davis reply, that either or both
may be compared with what we say OF
them.
Before we speak of the merits OF the
case let us notice two things in Col.
Davis letter which appear to US as
ebullltions OF temper. First, he speaks
of having applied to the deputy sheriff
Che intended to say deputy county clerk,
as that was the officer to whom he really
applied, and the proper oficer) to see
the ballots. in such q way as to leave
the impression tn It some unfair advant-
age had been taken in not showing them
to him, when it Is we'll understood that
the law requires the clerk to preserve
all election ballots for one year, and
then to destroy them. While in his pos
session they a only be opened BY ju.
dicial process. We have M idea that
Col. Davis means to reflect upon the
county clerk in the matter, but still the
assertion that s'the ballots for 1875 had
not been preserved" unaccompanied
by the explanation of by they had been
destroyed, leaves a bad impression.
Again Col. Davis says:-"The Intelli-
gencer, in its comments on the subject,
reminds me OF a man who, embracing
you as a friend with one arm, stabs you
at the same time with the other. For
instance, it says. ut Is but fair to state
Col. Davis position regarding these
bonds. He states that the bonds
we're not received, as has been
alleged, as sa'ary while lie was
an officer of the road, but that five
thousand dollars was received for prop
erty OF South street, and the talance
for %cattle,' sc. In the article publish
ed, referred to above. the county court
Judges do not claim or state that l re.
ceived the bonds for my services while
an officer OF the road, nor have l ever
heard before that it was 30 charged;
hence the Intelligencer must speak out
and give its author for the charge. or
stand responsible for it." We should
not, probably. have used the words las
has been alleged" as we know of no
one who has so alleged; but We fell into
the careless expression, as we think.
quite naturally. In the n of ex-
pressing opinion we made no ''com.
ments." We only ~endeavored to state,
from what Col. Davis had told US, his
position in the matter, in order that both
sides might 60 to the public together.
When we told him OF the approaching
publication of the courts answer, he
Immediately made q very vehement dis
claimer (Which he substantially repeats,
as will be observed, in his letter) of
having obtained his bonds dishonesty,
tor salary. or at a discount, and. volun-
tarily, informed us how he rad receiv-
ed them. He seemed especially solicit
Gus that We should understand that he
had not received them as salary. and
repeated the statement several times,
which naturally conveyed the inference
that something of the kind had been
stated. and led to our expression regard
ing it. We replied that we we're glad
he had mentioned the matter, as we had
heard 1t spoken of, but assured him
then, as we do the public now, that we
had never heard anyone question that
he had obtained the bonds fairly and
honestly. We have no desire in the
world to stab the colonel 81 with Al
lnnuendo. Our great wish is to see the
balance OF the county debt compromised,
as has been much the greater part of 1t;
but even to gain a point IN that direc-
ton we shall not c%ondescend to misrep-
resentation. So much for side issues.
Col. Davis thinks, because he has
been a prompt taxpayer in Missouri for
orty and in Lafayette county for nlne-
teen years, that he should be paid his
bonds at other terms than those extend
ed to foreign holders OF the same bonds.
WhyP Because he paid for his bondsP
So did they. Because he paid dollar
for dollar for themP They will ask,
''Was not our ~eighty-ive or ninety
cents in money equal to your dollar in
houses or live stock ?" They will furth-
err desire TO know, "Whereln were ac
benefited by the compromise, the prin-
cple of which you lent your personal
influence to compel us to receive; 1t did
not save US money in M direction while
1t took 1t from US in another; it in no
way reduced our taxes or added to the
prosperity of our community; then
wherein were we relieved by itP You
we're. Yoar county was in revolution.
Bankruptcy stared you in the face. Re-
pudiatioD, with Its attendant evils OF
desolatIon and ruin, was threatened.
Your lands were becoming valueless;
your young people were abandoning the
county to such an extent that your pop
ulation had fallen off some three thous-
and since the previous census. Your
people were disnayed, disheartened,
discouraged. The adjustment of their
debt put new life into them. They be-
gan to hope to look for light in the dis
lance They went to work with renew
ed energies. They prospered. Their
lands rose in value. They had quiet
homes, unmolested by the turmoil Of
distrust caused by the dishonest public
officers who had piled the debt upon
them against their protests. In these
blessings you shared; but, did we p
And We think the foreign %bondholde,
would have the advantage in the discus.
sion. The larger the possessions il
Lafayette county of the home boudhold
er the stronger would be the argument
of the foreign b%ondholder.
Col. Davis personal position toward
the compromise, it seems to US, shoult
peculiarly appeal to him to aid rattle
than irus; rate it. III bis article, as in
deed in the courts answer, the conven
tion OF November 20. 1875, is alone al