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

nit q compromise to the voters of La
fayette county proposing to issue new
bonds 1t the rate OF 70 cents ON the dol.
lar payable in % years bearing interest
at the rate OF six per cent per annum
The bill further AYERS that said conf
promise whom submitted was approved
by q majority OF the voters Of Lafayette
county; shat at and during the time
those proceedings we're pending the de-
Radiant Davis, = leading .citizen and .
large taxpayer OF the county of Laisy.
cite, took an active part in tho disous-
sions and consideration had prior to
and at the time OF the vote on the prop.
osition to COMPROMISE. advocating the
same by forcible and persuasivs argu.
meuts, thus effectively aiding in the
adoption thereof by the voters.
The bill charges that during al this
time lhe'defendant Davis was the ow u.
or of a large number Of the bonds of
Lafayette county. and it was expected
that he would exchange them 10 other
bcndnolders did under the compromise
for twenty-five year bonds as he was
found in good conscience 10 do, but. that
he not only failsd to do 90, but On the con-
trary falsely, deceitfuliy and fraudulent
ly pretended to have sold and assigned
the bonds and coupons sued on to the do
fendant, the First National Bank Of
Jefferson City, Missouri. VINO instituted
SUIT thereon in tho circuit court Of the
United States in the Western District. OF
Missouri and recovered Judgment
against complainant and is now seeking
to collect the same by all the means in
its power. a. R 4,
The bill proceeds to charge that the
First National Bank OF Jefferson City
was not the owner of the bonds sued on
and has no interest in the Judgment OBJ
tanned that said defendant Davis
was at the time Of the bringing
OF the suit and prior thereto the
owner of the bonds and il now thee own
er Of the judgment obtained aud con-
trolls the same; that said pretended sale
and delivery OF the bonds to the First
National Bank Ut Jefferson City was .
wrongful and Turbulent c%ontrivance on
the part OF said Davis to AVOID xoud
and valid deienses which he knew the
county OF Lafayette had and would
make III reference TO the bonds sued
Gu, that in this way said Davis sought
to deprive the circuit court OF La
tayette county of its proper Jurisdiction
wrongtully and by deceit and fraud gave
jurisdiction to the United States circuit
court which it woulu not have had and
taken ii the ownership OF the bonds
and the residence of the owner thereof
had been known.
The bill next proceeds to aver that
the acts and dulngs OF said Davis and
the bank did not come to the knowledge
OF plaintiff u til October, 1881, when
their diligent inquiry resulted In the
ascertaining OF the facts set out.
The bill further AYERS that the county
Of Lafayette has a good, valid aid sub.
slsting defense to the Judgment obtain
ed which it will make a. SOON Is oppor-
lunity is given, in this, that the bank
had no right to sue in the Federal
courts; that Davis in good conscience 10
bound to take new IS year bonds upon
which he can sue only if not paid whom
tho same becomes due. aud prays that
the judgment dsceitfully and iraudu.
lently obtained may be set aside 30 a.
to enable the county OF Lafayette to
make defense.
To this bill defendants file their d..
murrer, assigning a. causes, the want
OF due diligence in bringing the suit,
failure to offer Subtraction Of the liz.
blllty ACKNOWLEDGED and want OF equity :
We have thus presented for consider
alton aud decision q new feature in the
long railroad bond litigation of. Mis-
souri,. The case seems to invite q 70.
view OF the controversy, and It il here
presented in the hope that it may tend
to bring about An early settlement Of
The remaining railroad bond indebted
ness, a settlement in which all parties
concerned are deeply interested.
While some OF the western states
about and prior to 1887, were making
efforts IN tho direction Of internal i'm.
provement, q few of the c~itixens and
newspapers OF Missouri laborsd In the
same direction. Tho first fruit OF their
efforts was the obtaining from the lsg.
lslature OF Missouri in 1887 of II char.
tiers Tor railroads In various parts Of the
state. Three OF these charters, the
Hannibal, Paris and Grand River, the
Louisiana and Columbia, and the St.
Louis and Bellevue railroads contained
provisions authorizing tho county
courts oil the counties through which
the roads might be located to subscribe
stock and issue the bonds OF the ooun.
ties iu payment thereof. As We look
back upon these provisions with our
experience since, we arc %astOnlshed
that the legislature should have on.
trusted such large and what We would
now term dangerous powers to q ooup-
ty court. How little actual danger
there was in such Legislation 1T the time
may be inferred from the fact that the
acts cited aud similar laws passed after.
ward stood upon the statute
book from 1887 up to 1850 with.
out being noticed or called in.
to requlsitlon. It was about 1850
that railroad building on a large scale,
and as public enterprises commenced in
Missouri. Railroad corporations o.
svaited the mselves OF tho provisions of
the laws referred to, but not until all
kinds OF will ana visionary schemes
were projected and aid s-ked for them
did the dangec OF the Law authorizing
county courts to make " H II ied rail-
road subscriptions become a~tbPfArent.
The act of 1855 authco th,d county
courts to submit the QUIZ. ot rail.
road subscription to the voters OF the
counties desi,i ing to subscribe tor infor-
nation was amended in 1860, requiring
such submission and = majority vote in
its favor, did y lessen but rather in
creased the danger for 1t removed the
responsibility of the county courts aud
placed it upon the people. The oons.i.
tuition OF 1865 undertook to furnish q
remedy BY limiting the powers OF SUB.
scription to a two thirds vote. This
WAS supposed to have efectual!y stop
ped i'll advised subscriptions and would
undoubtedly have done so, had it not
been Tor a decision of the supreme court
Of Missouri declaring that the constitu-
tional restriction did not apply to char.
tiers which had been granted before the
adoption OF hat instrument. Between
the years 1887 and 1865 the whole state
had been checkered owe with railroad
charters many of them authorizing the
building OF branches besides their main
lines, all having the right to subscribe
by the county courts in them. In addi-
ton the act of 1868 authorizing town
ships to subscribe was passed. Then
came the absolute prohibition in tho
constitution of 1875 but before it took
effect all kinds OF schemes had been got.