Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1883-06-02
Mr.. sK1HKER,s REPLY.

which he seeks to justify his cour'
toward Lafayette county in bond case
!. He falls into some errors Of fact whie
cali for correction
First, he claims not to have ADVISE
his client, the alleged Mr.. Cochra
Fleming, to refuse to accept the con
promise Of 80 cents, when further alon
in his communication he says that b
rule Il to require, not what . generor
creditor might consent to receive, b,
all that the debtor can pay. "sThis,
he says, els the ground sos take in th
Fleming case" When it is consider
that 30 cents was all that was original
paid for these bonds; that they wer
covered with fraud; and that to say tn
least there are equities to be considers
In the matter on the part Of the county
We fail to eco where Mr.. Skinker'
mercy comes in, or where there Is an.
spirit Of compromise in requiring al
that the debtor can pay. How mucl
moro could he collect were his deb
, perfectly just? Mr.. Skinker says b.
II not the owner Of the Fleming judg
msnt. We do not sllege that he Il. HI
says 1t II his client who persists IL
refusing to compromise. Now, why /,
1t that Mr.. Skinker conceals his client
Why il it, when the prosecuting
attorney Of this county sets up in hi,
answer that Cochran Fleming ia II
imaginary person, created to enable the
attorney to bring his suit in the United
States court, and further states that 4
the agents Of the county could ap'
proach Mr.. Fleming they believe thai
he could be induced to do IS other
bondholders have done, accept the
compromise-why IL it, If Mr.. Skinkel
fsvors this c~ompromise, that he refusel
to tell where his client may be found
Mr.. Skinker cites names Of persons
whom he advised to compromise. Parts
ofLong's judgment were compromised
through other agencies and none OF
them but Long & Briggs and the Rus
~sellville Bank N Of record as having
compromised at all bnt that is of no
moment; why 10 it that in thiscase' Mr..
Skinker Is 30 president and unfair, as
10 shown without comment by his own
communication /? Why does he hide
his client, while he puts the burden of
refusing to compromise upon his shoul-
ders, and ct the same time declare, 81
shall continue by all lawful means to
endeavor to collect his debit"
Mr.. Skinker intimates that Judge
Young, and other county officers. led
him to believe that if, in 1877, he would
ho'd up on the Fleming case until
those who were willing to compromise
had done SO, he might then be able to
collect that debt in full. Judge Young
and Mr.. Steel answer that intimation
He then states, "From
that time until 1881, a period of four
years, as the records Of the United
States court will show, I took no steps
in the case" This is not q fact The
truth is, that this Judgment being Wig
orously pressed, q levy was made, and,
sales of personal property took place
under It, In 1879, We have the can
celed warrant before US as we write,
showing the payment Of the proceeds
ofthis sale to Mr.. Skinker, son account
Of the Cochran Fleming judgment"
We are glad that Mr.. Skinker tries
prove that he has favored our COM
promises. It shows that he appre-
and acknowledges the justice of
our view as to his duty as an attorney.
We are sorry that his act, In imprison-
ing u county judges, does not COM
port with his profession. The people
Of Lafayette county look upon him as
unrelenting enemy in this matter,
and he is woefully mistaken if he thinks
that the adverse feeling his course has
caused il confined to this county. 1t is
very general throughout the state, as
the vigorous expressions of the press
evince.
New as to the township bonds. We
have examined the report of the pro-
ceedings of the meeting in June 1882.
We Q therein nothing to sustain what
Mr.. Skinker now says, but much to
support our position in the matter. Mr..
Skinksr is thereby shown to have been
active member of the meeting. He
made propositions, argued for his de-
mands, and combatted adverse views.
is nowhere therein shown to have
refused for his clients to abide the final
action of the convention. He did not
withdraw fromit- His presence, and
his participation in the business of the
meeting, was q guarantee from him that
he was authorized to be there; aud,
according to the report Of the meeting,
and all reports we have ever heard of
his action therein, we are led to believe
that he was "morally as much conclud-
ed by its action as ifevery proposition
he made therein had been agreed to-"
In spite of this, however, he has now
another suit on township bonds filed
for hearing, in Longs name, before the
present term of the q. 8. circuit court
at Kansas City. We are not at all
surprised to observe that he does all in
his power to Justify his course in this
regard, but he cannot find any justif.
cation for his conduct in the record. to
he cites us.
Mr.. Skinker does not defend himself
as All officer Of the state supreme court
for doing ali III his power to bring the
3, : . u: ".Hu.f in:o r,n,ag ~,
He .,"e> not II, lend muse / ITS l, demo-
Tor invoking the Jul. isdiclion of a
United States court to set aside the de-
cision of the stale supreme court as 10
what constitutes state law. He does not
himself for holding a position
the salary of which is paid in part by
Lafayette county, while he. resorts to
the barbarous method, long since dis
carded by civilized communities, of
i,npris"ning our oticers-for debt.
Lafayette county needs to cherish no
feeling of vengeance against him to ask