Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1883-06-02
A GARD FROM MR.. sKINKER.
sr. LoUrs, Mo-, Nav soth, lsss

EDITION INrELLIoENcEl:-For the conaplimen
tary things you say Of ne IN your editorial o
the e6th inst. accept my thanks. The errors o
fact into which you fall call for correction.
And hrst. yen say. ''He has urged his CLIENT
70 refuse to compromise their County honda q
% cents on the dollsr." This is not . fact.
have never advised Q client to reject this eom
promise. On .the contrary, under my sdvic,
and with my cooperation, not less than S60. 00(
or bonds and judgments have gone into 1t. These
belonged to Nmrod Long, Joseph B. Briggs, r.
b. Caldwell. and. Others OF Rnssellyille, Kv..
theLonisviils savtngs Bank OF Louisville. KY,
man. His. Oh. Plsst Of Hyde PARK. IHs.. and
n. q. stswarts Of Jacksboro, Texas. The Coch-
ran Fleming Judgment is the only judgment
against he county aver under my control which
esmain6 aneompromiseA. I am net the-owner OF
this Judgment, A. seems to be intimatsd In. your
paper Of April 9eth. lam but the attorney. Ny
client long ago. acting upon inforDstion not de-
rived trem me. and without sskinE my advice.
definitely 2eoided not to accept the compromise.
ON DE ground that the county IL able to pay In
tgll. IsE but exseuting his instructions. Until
kthey ass changed. ! shall contlnue BY all lawful
Emsaas y sndsavor to collect hls debt.
Onsi fast In this case should not be lost sight
Of. In 1877 I had obtained . persmptory writ
for the levy Of tax. The county had then just
got lts compromise well started. The moment
was an snxioas one. Bondholders were slowly
falling into line. bat they were still distrustful
and reluctant. Any new cause Of irritation
would delay and miGht defeat the compromise.
The Fleming msndsmus was looked upon BY
your county o1lcers - the source Of ths greatest
danger. lit was holly pressed 1t would proba-
bly, stir anew the Elements Of opposition to COM
promise in the county, and ON the other hand
would be likely to cause other bondholders to
hold on In the hope that Flsming's 4sncssss
might lead 70 better results tor themselves.
These views were urgently pressed upon me by
several Of the county onacers. particularly by
Mr.. Wm. Young. and the suggestion was made
that LII would visit until the bulk OF the debt
was settled. the county would be In condition
TO pay ths whole judgment. If it was stfll de-
mandsd.s Satisfied Of the correcinese oEthIs
view. hsyinEao desire to disturb the eompro.
misc, and hoping that the time would come
when the county woald bs content to pay in full
the remnant ok her debt. I obtained my clients
consent to suspend operations. From that time
until 1881. . period Of four years. as the records
of the q. 8. court will show. I took no step In
the csss. Doss this show me the ''unrelenttng
and unreasonlng enemy Of Lafayette oounty9
1t has been my rule in all cases to promote |
sAS s0~A niA0SA OOWREOWioeos VlQ "y COus
and II many cases upon my sugges-
tion and recommendation. numerous settle 4
menn have been made with counties. cities and
township by parties 1 represented, at figures
reaching down Is low as25 sents ON the dollar,
(ss In Pierce township. Lawrence county, or
even Is cent? Gas in Pleasant, Hill township.
cass oountyl In all cases the question c0nsid-
cred was. mot what . gfnerous hearted creditor
would accept. but what the debtor could pay
and this ta the ground We take in the Fleming
case.
Now. - to the township bonds-It is true that l |
was present at the meeting held june Doth aud
2lst, 1852. to consider the question OF compro-
mise; but how it can be shown that sm NOR
ally n much concluded by LIS actfon Is II every |
he ~ made therein had been
agreed to-" I fail to perceive. The facts are
there: I stated to the meeting that 1 had no fn-1
from my clients. but had some ~gener-
81 KNOWLEDGE ftheir views, that I beiievsd.Ii
sould get them to agree TO a uniform rate of
for she three townships Lexington. |
" ashington and sni-a-Bar Of SIC for bonds and
coupons and 65 cents for Judgments. but moth
ing less. demonstrated that At the rates pro-
posed by the townships, and since adopted, the
sntire tax for compromise bonds would be 70
cents on the 800 or lesss and a. 1t was conceded
hat the lands In the county were generally
assessed 1t less than one-half their value, this
resliy meant q tax Of lsss than 20 cents on the
BOO. I said that those who had paid 70 to Is cents
or their bonds coald well afford to compromise
IN these terms. but my clients who had paid so
30 cents could not. and when they were ap.
prised Of the lightness of the burden to the peo.
pie or the townships. I knew they would not. L
accordingly notified the meeting, In language
as plain as I could command, not to expect
hem to accept. Turn to your own report, Mr..
Editor. Of the proceedings Of the meeting, and
see if mlsstate the position ! then took. If not,
rom Whist do you dsduce y moral obligation on
ny part ito ssy nothing of my clients) To abb.
'he action Of the uneetingP II the fact that 1 was
and that others agreed to terms which
on the spot gave notice would not be accepted,
imposes any sort of obligation. 1 confess l need
1eW light on moral science.
You have Q good deal TO say rs to the proprie.
of my conduct In prosecuting bond suits
while / AN reporter ut the supreme Court, and
Is Inconsistency with my profession OF demo-
ratio principles. This card. already too long
. writtrn to corIect Measurements and remove
ssise Impressions as to ~Ihatters OF fact. l cannot
70 with you into q discussion OF these questions
# opinion. Suffice it to say that outside of La
ayet!e county few are found who object 10 nv
Conduct In either particular. But if it was ever
70 improper and inconsistent. l fail to zee how
you expect to benefit your people by securing
ny removal from office. As an act OF Vengeance.
{ might crafty them; but 1t will surely not
maze me 4 less efficient prosecutor of bond quits
1 nave more time to attend to them.
Respectfully,
T. X. sK1NKER,