Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1883-12-01
OONO0RDIA's GOVERNMENT.

EDITOR INTELLIGENCER: - The communica-
tion given below, was presented to the editor of
the Missouri Post, which he refuses to publish |
You will confer u benefit upon the people Of
Concordia by inserting the same in your csl- |
umns. |
The commun ication IL as follows:
EDITOR Missouri PosT:-In your issue of the
9th INST, appeared an editorial in which YOU |
Inisrepresent me and other persons therein re-
ferred to. l refer to your report OF u case which
You allegs to have been tried before the city
mayor. Wednesday, November asrd. As an
evidence that your report OF SAID case is In Cor
rect. l refer you to the affidavit of the city |
mayor, which 10 as follows:
"Ihis afiant makss oath and says that the |
case referred to in the Missouri Post OF the eth
inst, was never tried before him., as mayo OF
the city of Concordia. The ufiant further |
states that no such person as mentioned by tie
Post in the Issue referred to. was ever arraign-
ed before him as mayor upon any charge what
ever. and that the whole case as reported by the
Post ID entirely false. (Signed)
FREDERICK e. COOK, Mayor.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this asth |
day OF November, 1883. 1 was qualified for .
term expiring April It'll. 1885.
lScaI.l OTTO WALKENHORST,
Notary Public.
l presume you will accept this as conclusive |
evidence, that our report OF the Gaze is not only |
false, but that you have reported = false case.
Permit me to say. however, that l think your
error is the result ot ignorance in the matter
rather than any malevolent intention.
Further, you subjoin some commentaries upon
the statutes OF the state applicable to the City of
Concordia. anu upon the ordinances of said |
city. You alphabetically maintain. i'll the edl,o-
rIal ii -. sl., A. -.
ploy AN attorney to represent her In her legal
proceedings. Now, my dear sIr, you claim 10
he 4 lawyer, and as such l shall address you, !
The act under which the city is Incorporated
expressly declares the city to be u municipal
corporation, and by its name shalI~have the
power to 'sue and be sued, implead and be I'M
pleaded. defend and be defended in all courts OF
law and equity. and in all actions whatsoever
l quote from the Revised Statutes OF Missouri,
section 1881.
II Is well established principle of law, which
l apprehend you will not undertake to deny,
that Il corporation can only appear in u judicial
tribunal by Its authorized attorney. And yet
you assert the monstrous proposition that the
city of ConcOrdia, u full dcdged corporation,
has no power to contract with an attorney to
represent her in the litigation to which sine il a
party.
You further assert the proposition that under
the ordinances of the city ali fines, forfeItures,
costs and all claims whatsover, collected from
u defendant are To lie paid into the city treasury.
To relieve your much ~emp fancy, l
Will refer you to article Ill, sections Is, 10,
and ~. wherein there are express provisions for
payment of COSTS and fees 10 the officers render
ing the services.
Again. you state that the mayor is not entitled
TO compensation for his services, except such as
is approved and allowed by the board of alder
men. And You make this statement in the face
OF section s, article 5, of the ordinances.
Where it is stated III mayor sAaX be en-
HIIsd 10 sneh fees prescribed D. hv fa.
Iasfices Of The peace Io,. ~si0siha,. ~serpices, to
be ka<sa as casts in Tie cause
might say much more upon this subject, but
l think | have amply reiuted the false statement
in the article referred to, and have corrected the |
legal s%ophIstry therein contained.
lido not ask as . courtesy. but l demand Us =
matter CT justice, that you publish this commu- |
nlcation in the columns OF your paper, as l
think where one Is charged with wrong, he has "A
right to defend in the same forum.
Respectfully,
II. j. DULlSG. |