Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1881-11-12

little benefit from this vast expendl-
lure and squandering of their money.
and that they we're aud still are
greatly embarrassed thereby; that
said bonds outstanding as aforesaid.
were mostly ten per cent. interest
bonds, and that it required
in taxes about the sum of
SOC, 900 to pay the interest alone; that
the annual expenses of said county
for county purposes alone during the
years 1871, 1872. 1873, 1874 and 1875,
ran from S43,0O0 to $7S, 600; that In
addition to said bonded Indebted
ness, and the enormous annual ex.
for county expenses, %
there was floating war
rant debt outstanding Of about $45,.
900, which SAID warrants, because Of
the greatly embarrassed financial COLI
dition Of said county, were being sold
at sixty and seventy cents on the dol.
lar; that all Of the business Of said
county was being done on the credit
system that many Of said bonds had
fallen due, payment had been de-,
manded, aud said court being unable
to pay either the principal or inter-
est, suits had been brought aud
others threatened against said coun-
ty; that the assessed value of the
taxable property of said county at
the time being only $1,000, 900, the
people could see no way of meeting
or providing tor the payment of said
indebtedness and at the same time
pay even the necessary expenses Of
the county; that in addition to the
aforesaid debts aud demands then be-
ing pressed against said county the
people were greatly harrassed aud
embarrassed with = township indebt-
edness of about $500, 900. This being
the financial condition of said coun-
ty, and the people feeling unable to
pay the same, determined, after COLI
sultation with many Of the holders
of said bonds, to try aud effect com.
promise of the entire bonded indebt-
tdness of said county, and according
ly in November OF said year, 1875.
the taxpayers Of said county met in
convention. composed of delegates
duly elected from the several NUM-
cipal townships in said county, and
after discussing and celebrating up.
on the question from day to day flnal-
ly, by resolution. asked the county
court of said county to submit to
the voters of said county the propo-
sition to fund the entire bonded debt
OF the county (coanty bonds) at sew
enty cents OH the dollar for accrued
interest and principal on six per cent.
bonds, and at eighty cents on the dol
lar tor accrued interest and principal
Oh ten per cent. bonds, January Let,
1876, to be the time of settlement.
The payment to be made In six per
cent county bonds. running twenty
five years. That said proposition was
i'll December, 1875, by salt court, sub
mitted to vote OF the people of said
county and carried by almost unan-
imous vote. That said compromise
was entered into by said people In
good faith, and in the composition Of
said bonds said court has faithfully,
in all cases, observed and carried out
the terms Of said proposition and
compromise. That both bonds aud
bond judgments have been compro-
missed under and by virtue of the
same, aud that the people aud tax
payers of said county have, do now,
and will ever approve aud stand by
said compositions. That under said
compromise, and according to the
terms and conditions thereof, about
80 per cent. OF SAID bonded indebted
ness has been compounded. In fact
almost all Of said bonds held and
owned by Don.resideuts Of the state
OF Missouri land large majority Of
said bonds " ere so owned aud held)
have been compromised on the terms
aforesaid. The most, If not all, Of
the remaining bonds being held and
owned by citizens Of Lafayette coun.
ty, who took an active part in said
convention, vsted for said PROPOSE
tion and compromise, aud who now
after compromise has been made
with non-resiucnt holders Of said
bonds demand the full amount of
principal and interest for theirs.
And these respondents further state
and show that they should not be at
tached herein. because the bonds up
on which this judgment was render
cd were and are said Lafayette coun-
~ bonds, issued 10 the Lexington &
ST. Louis Railroad Company, and
these respondents have reason to be-
lieve, aud 90 believe and charge tho
fact to be, that before aud al the
time of the commencement of the
suit herein one Joseph Davis, q resi-
dent of said Lafayette county, was
the holder and owner of said bonds,
and that he, said Davis, is the holder
AMI owner OF said judgment. aud
that said bonds were simply trans
terred by said Davis to said First Ma
tional Bank of Jefferson City for the
purpose OF eOnferring jurisdiction on
this Honorable Court to try and de-
terInine said cause; he, the said
Davis, hoping and expecting thereby
and in that manner 20 avoid the stul-
titication and embarrassment conse.
quent upon the fact that he was an
active and prominent member in and
CT said convention, and voted for
said proposition and celnpromise both
in said convention and at the polls.
Aud these respondents further state
and shcw that Said Davis was in said
promise and terms thereof, and that
being IN said convention and voting
as aforesaid, that in equity he is con-
cluded aud now bound to stand by
and carry out said con ract and coni-
promise. And these respondents
further state and show that it would
lie both unjust and inequitable to al
low resident bondholders to demand
and receive full pay aud interest for
their bonds after said resident bond.
holders, by their acts, had influenced
anu encouraged nou-residsut bond.
holders TO compromise aud pant will