The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1883-07-17

but that in conversation with a number of
country people, he had learned that, owing
TO the prejudice existing among them
against bonds, he was satisfied that this
proposition could not be carried He was
for the court house, and for the best plan
10 secure it. which all things cons dered he
thought was by direct taxation.
Mr.. Houston thought that it was the
duty of the court 10 decide between the two
petitions, and that he was satisfied that
the people were three TO one in favor of the
band scheme.
Judge Gentry remarked that the court
Was only a machine in the hands of the
people, and therefore has no right to submit
any particular plan.
Mr.. Houston insisted that it was the
duty OF the court to decide upon the mat
ter and submit one of the two propositions.
Mr.. Wilkerson again spoke in favor of
the direct taxation scheme, which he de-
nominated the 'cash SYSTEM" because the
country people were overwhelmingly
in favor of that plan and he
wanted a proposition submitted this time
which would not fail to carry.
Mr.. Charles E. Yeatei suggested that
both petitions should be Withdrawn and a
convention called in accordance with the
suggestion made by Mr.. Jackson.
Mr.. +. A. Sampson thought that if either
plan was submitted, the first one, viz: the
bond scheme, would be voted down.
Mr.. Yeater said that having presented
the first petition, viz: that tor the issuing of
bonds, he would Withdraw it. Mr.. Jno d.
Russell disputed the right of Mr.. Yeater to
Withdraw the petition, stating that he had
himself presented the petition to the court.
MIR. Yeater thought not as he had himself
made the draft of the petition and secured
most Of the signatures thereto. Upon in
vestigation it was found that there had
been two petitions presented which were
subsequently tackled together and in this
manner were filed in the county clerk'r
Office.
At this stage of the proceedings Judge
Taylor remarked soto vOce, 'there will be
no court house."
Hon. George F. Longan addressed the
court briefly and made some very sensible
and forcible remarks on the question under
discussion. He said that after one PROPOSE
and voted upon that the authority of that
body was exhausted. He supported his
opinion by quoting from the statute, and
u running OlSCuSSlOh D6tWceu the young
legislator and the legal oracle Of the coun-
ty, Mr.. Jackson, was continued at some
length.
Judge Taylor moved that the court or
der an election on the first proposition, viz:
that of issuing bonds. The motion was
not seconded.
Both petitions were then Withdrawn, and
the matter now remains just as it was be-
fore either was presented. The authority
by which either petition was Withdrawn
may be questioned. and it looks very much
like Judge Taylor was correct when he
mournfully remarked: 1--WE will never
have court house"
The petitions were Withdrawn by the
parties who presented them to the court. in
the name of the petitioners, but by what
authority is not known. Certainly the
signers Of the petition have not been con-
suited. By the action of the court yesler-
day the matter ID left precisely in the same
condition as it was before any petition was
and to the casual observer it
seems that it will be cold day when Pet
It's county has q court house.