Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1882-12-09

. speak of the state railroad debt was In
CURED. Aside from the visionary pro
jects OF many of the proposed railroad
themselves, the anxiety amounting to
i, craze to. have them built at once, cause q,
very bad financial management. an
often acts bordering or fraud in tn
disposltiou of the bonds we're commit
ted. Contracts for building OF road
were entered into with any and ever,
body at enormous prices and withou
the least security. Members OF corpor
atoms contracted with themselves 10
work OF material. aud became tn
financial, agents OF their own corpora
lions. Al: this was submissively born,
aud interes: on bonds paid during TIT
hallucination Of railroad building. Thu
tho crisis of 1872 found the people o
Missouri. with many OF their railroad!
in various stages OF construction. will
empty treasures, destroyed confidence
and credit. The SOLDERING up process
which set in was greatly accelerated b.
demands to pay interest. Now cam.
the inquiry what have We been doing
In many instances partial roadbeds, NJ
roads, and yet large indebtedness. Th.
cry OF fraud became almost universe
in the indebted counties. and vas &C
loud that the matter Of i~mprovidence
was silenced or unheard. Resistance
to the payment of obligations became as
much q craze as formerly the building
Of railroads. There is perhaps but lit.
tie blame attached to anybody. In the
the rush to accomplish much in tie
shortest possible time individual judg.
nent, laws aud courts were alike over.
borne and thus oil have participated in
bringing about q state OF affairs now la.
mentod.
That all kinds of defenses to the
bonds issued should DO attempted in
courts was . natural result OF the MAN.
ner in which the indebtedness had been
incurred. That the fault IN most In
stances had been committed by the
people themselves or their legally elect
ed constituted agents. the county courts,
was not thought OF, nor the fact taken
into account that county courts had
often, when they refused to issue bonds,
been compelled to do 30 by mandamus
issued by their own local state courts.
The bonds issued BY counties having
bsen made payable to bearer 10 a. to
facilitate their negotisbllity and readily
obtain. money on thoIn, were by the
supreme court OF the United States de-
clared negotiable Instruments perhaps
in part persuaded to do 20 tor the same
reasons that they had been made payable
to bearer. Thus all inquiry into the man
ner OF their issue III the hands of limo.
cont holders was cut off and the sole
question tor courts to determine was,
did legal authority for their issue exis,P
Inquiries into agreements made with
corporations 40 to location of the roads,
depots, switches, and completion OF the
work were all Ont off as to bonds in the
hands OF innocent holcers for value.
Tho bonds being largely owned by non
to resort to the United States courts Tor
redress. The result 81 the litigation
which followed vas In most instances
favorable to the holders of the bonds
and the judgments OF the lower courts
were affirmed on appeal to the supreme
court Ut tue United States. The decis.
ion in the Harshman vs.. Bates county
case. and conflict between The state and
federal courts. tended to gIve support
10 the prevailing feeling OF Reputation
and opposition to the enforcement OF
the Judgments ofU. 8. courts. Legls-
latiOn Was rssorted to either to obstruct
or prevent tho collection of the judy
ments of federal oourts. The class OF
Legislation here referred to eliminated
in what il known ss the Cottey bill, which
was o 0 after Its passage declared un-
constitutional because it changed the
laws and remedies in force at the time
of the issuing of the bonds and made
them less effective. By implication this
Cottey bill also sought to deny to the
federal courts the stats machinery for
the enforcement Of its judgments. but
this inference was treated by the court
declaring the act uucons,itu,io nal as too
vague to mako any declaration on.
Even if the Legislature OF q state has
the power to deny to the United States
the use of tho machinery the state en-
Ploys for the enforcement OF ire iudg.
ments Of ito own courts it should never
do so; for such an exercise OF authority
would show a hostility to the general
government which should DO discoura.
ged. All attempts such IS refusing to
levy taxes in obedience to proper writs,
or prevent the collection of taxes levisd,
must in the long run tail and lnfict Sc
rious Injuries upon those who UNDER
take it. No govsrMsnt can without
abnegatton Of its functions, fail to en-.
force the judgments of its courts. II
the employment of existing state ma
chinery for that purpose could success.
fully be denied to tho federal govern
ment or prove inefficient, Congress in
the exercise Of Its undoubted powers
would pass laws deemed necessary tor
the proper and efficient enforcement of
the judgment OF ils courts. Nor 10 The
that the employment of the
state machinery tends to consolidation
valid, tor the concession, ii it be such,o ON !
thePart'ot the state, 10 of the comfy which
should exist hetw cen the federal and |
state government. both belonging to
existing for the benefit OF the same
people. How much bst,er Oft would
the people OF tho indebted communities
be to lind their own officers set aside
those OF another Jurisdiction COM
ing among them enforcing orders and
judgments OF Its courts. As judgments
of United States courts must be enior- |
ced the choice as to who shall do 1t is
certainly in favor OF state officers. 1t is
only necessary to stop and reflect tor a
moment to see the force of these sug-
gestions. As soon ~ seen and acted on
the incarceration of state officers will
cease. Tho indebted counties will re-
ceive their share OF immigration, capital
will seek Investment in them, raising
the value IF both real and personal
property. Nearly all the indebtedness
of the counties, townships. cities and
in Missouri has been settled by |
compromises. While this is the case rs =
whole, there are a few bondholders
whose claims tor one reason or another
remain unsettled. These seeing the
returning prosperity OF their debtors
under the compromises, now seek to
take advantage OF the favorable turn
things have taken and not satisfied with
what others have done now demand
the whole of their debt. The defendant
in this case. under tho allegations OF
the bill, which the demurrer, for the
purpose Of determining the legal ques-
tions sdnlits to be true. is in a moro
unenviable position even than the class
mentioned. He is charged with having
advocated and voted for the compro.
missing of the lafayette county debt,
thereby as q citizen and taxpayer les.
SEEMING his W liability. Having thus
implicitly at least agreed to accept 70
cents on the dollar In new 25 year bonds,
he now refuses to do so, and in order
IN n uail thn ~.-,.l "