Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1882-12-23
TOWNSHIP THEATEHED'

financial situation of the county and
there II q very serious ana
grave danger threatening them.
1t will be remembered that in1s6s and
1869, there was issued by the county
court, for and on behalf of Lexington
Lafayette county, Mo-, to
the Lexington s. St. Joseph railroad.
the sum OF seventy-fve thousand dol
lars in bonds. The interest was paid
these bonds but q short time. they
being among the first of our township
bonds which were d~iscredited. Thus,
If now made collectabls the principal
aud Interest would amount to
something over one hundred aud
seventy thousand dollars.
In the litigation which ensued jon
athan Kirkbride sued the county on
some Of these bonds, and the case
being vigorously defended Judges
Krekel and Dillon. of the u s.. circuit
court, decided III favor of the county,
declaring those particular bonds to
be unconstitutional aud void. Kirk.
bride appealed his case to the United
Stale Supreme court. where 1t has
been pending since, but 1t is at last to
be heard, sometime during next
mouth. aud 1t behooves the people of
the township to be alive to their
interests in the matter, a. it would be
. terrible blow to our taxpayers. aud
. perfect incubus upon their property,
il this immense sum should be sad
died upon them. There is no doubt
10 our mind about the correctness of
the views Of Judges Krekel aud
Dillon on the matter, OF the ~clesrness
OF their reasoning, but, alas we have
ceased to expect pure law aud exact
justice from the highest court in this
land, which should in very deed be
the palladium of the liberties of the
people, aud the defender of their
rights. The Hsrshman cast is too
fresh in our minds.
We have this advantage, that this
time the decision in our favor Is by
Quilted States rather than by state
judges; but even this may not save
us. When this case comes up it should
be defended. aud vigorously.
The subject Of township lltiga-
tiou brings up the contract made
by the county court four or i've years
ago with Nessrs. VIM. Young aud
Alexander Graves, a. attorneys for
the defense OF these bonds. As there
has been much demsgogical misrepre.
s~sntation r~egarding it We will review
1t, III order to refresh the minds of the
people, aud iu order that now, when
the people should act unitedly, there
may be no division or disputes among
ourselves. Briefly, the county court
contracted with Messrs. Young &
Graves that they would pay them, to
defend all suits III township bonds
against the county, $500 in cash and
$24 per cent. on all Sums that they
should succeed III defeating. As
the county was threatened with q
multitude Of tho suits in question
Judge Young went to Washington
City to ascertain the status of the
csses. As . result Of this visit Messrs.
Young & Graves we're permitted to
become associated In the case oil
Charles E. Anthony We. Jasper county,
pending before the Supreme court OF
the Uuited States, no Lafayette ooun.
ty case being in position to be tried
before that tribunal. aud its judgment
being the one desired. In addition to
this. the attorneys Of this county,
Jackson, Cass aud another county OF
Two, employed Ssnator Edmuuds
paying him q fee Of 81. 900, TO arzne .
case which was pending against Jack
son county, and in which he expressed
almost the certainty of success. Mr.
Gage. representative-elect. OF Kanssl
City, aud one Of the ablest lawyers il
Missouri, was in the case for Jackson
county. Aessrs. Young and Gravel
prepared q briei in the Jasper count,
case, aud Mr.. Graves argued tie cas-,
before the supreme court. But al
was Of no avail, the court reversed
itself and declared the township bond
valid.
j, W. allude to these facts to show
that nothing was then left undoue; tina
due diligence was used; and that tn,
cry that the county court had paid on
q large sum Of money for nothing wa
false and unjust. The truth is, tina
Msssrs. Young & Graves ESQ far ,ou
OF pocket in the cases. This is not par
tlcslarly a matter Of public interest
except that the truth should be known
and that no fancied wrong should pre-
vent the people from holding up thsi
hands and aiding them in their work o
defense. A brief has been prepared
and one or both OF our attorneys vii
submit aud make arguments upon I
when the case Is called. No gentlems,
could be better armed upon the question
than are these two. knowing the Law
touching upon it from intimate oonnec
ton with the question from its iuciplsn
, cy, clear headed aud earnest, We th,nl
the townships interests are in goo,
hands, but. - in the multitude of coun
sci there is wisdom, We place 1t al
before the people. that ii anything NOR
can be done or suggested 1t may nc
DO neglected.
a Harper's Weekly, one OF the leadin;
republican journals of the country, say
!. in commenting upon Mr. Dorsey's re
. cent letter: - "Mr. Dorsey attribute
% prosecution to the desire for revenp
upon the part OF Mr.. james and NJ
Mao Veagh for his opposition to thei
appointment as members oil the CARTEL
q cabinet. But 10 one who knows thos
gentlemen will accept this theory an
then 10th decline to enter into person,
. controversy with q nan whom, upo
careful study OF the evidence. they Vi
hesita,ingly pronounce to be a thief.
e So! Does not Mr.. Curtis, who thu
i indorses the verdict of "thiei" again.
II Stephen W. Dorsey know that this ma