Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1885-02-07
MR. STEELE ON THE COUNTY AND
TOWNSHIP DEBTS.

Lafayette county have history that
should not be lost sight of. We are
prone to forget the occurrences of but
yesterday; even those who are living
witnesses to past monuments of wrongs
inflicted, soon cease to remember
them.
The Lexington Register of the 22nd
inst. advises an abandonment OF the
terms of compromise of the township
bonds as voted by the people, and
closes with this language:
t'It is high time that the people
themselves should take these matters
to sober consideration. They cannot
soon feel how the miserable fimancier-
ing and management Of these affairs by
some gentlemen have cost them hum
dreds of thousands of dollars. Procras-
tiuaiion in this matter is political
stock. Will the people longer stand
the confusion and embarrassment that
environs them2 They must CO."
IL is we'll established fact that the
entire mode and policy of the comprO-
mise OF the county and township bonds
was organized and has ever since been
conducted by the people themselves,
dittI LuC liCC6G OiSC0oSlOh POSoAolC,
participated ia alike by the holders Of
bonds, and the tax payers OF the county
and townships. The taxpayers have
from time to time held public meetings
to discuss the matter, and now have a
standing committee to represent them
in bond litigation. AS far back as the
year 1873 and 1874 club was organ
lied and had regular meetings in Lex
ington. This club was composed Of
many of the most prominent tax payers
of the county, such citizens as Messrs.
John Catron, John II. Ford, VIM. L.
Hays and many others of prominence.
They asked the county court (Ambrose
court as it was known) to resist the
payment of many of the bonds. The
matter was also taken up by the grange
and the tax layers generally, it being
evident to all that the taxes levied up
on the property of the county and
townships was more than could be
paid, the county taxes alone for the
year 1873 being three and one fifth
per cent; with state, school and town.
ship taxes would be in many localities
five per cent. The county debt being
81, 100000 and the township debt
@312, 900, with large amount of &C
cumulated interest thereon, county
warrants were only selling at 20 and 80
cents On the dollar. The assessed val
uation of property being seven and one
half millions of dollars as shown by
the assessment books. 1t became evil
dent not only to our own citizens, but
to creditors and holders of bonds, that
with this amount of property we could
not pay the debt in full, without ruin
and desolation to the county. The re-
suit was convention participated in
by citizens generally, including bond
holders, and after sending an agent to
st. Louis to advise with other bond
holders, the terms of compromise were
agreed upon. The most of our creditors
believing that the terms were fair and
just, and as much as the county and
townships could reasonably pay, they
have funded their county bonds save
and except 500 800 which are held and
controlled by persons claiming the last
dollar with interest. And now, as the
county by economy and fulfillment
of the agreement on the part of those
creditors who have funded their debt
becomes more able and prosperous,it it is
claimed by the remaining creditors
that we should pay them the last
pound. Who made the county able to
pay these county bonds that could not
be sold in 1876 for more that fifty cents
that came forward and met ia' Is n ina
just, liberal way, to help US rid our
selves of debt that was crushing the
very energies Of an honorable and for
bearing people; people that have re-
solved over and over again that they
never would make any distinction be-
tween their creditors but would treat
all alike; that they would oppose the
collection until every dollar with in
terest and costs was paid before they
would give one creditor more than
another had received.
Whose fault is it that the township
bonds have not Deen compromised and
settled? The people believed with the
state supreme court that there was no
law for the creation of this debt.
The bonds were issued by small
minority of the citizens of the town.
ships large majority of the tax payers
were not allowed the right of fran
chise. The road for which the bonds
were issued was never built, and the
citizens of the three townships with
unsettled bonds, have received no ben
efits, but in order to rid themselves of
any annoyance they did on the 31st
day of December, 1875, vote to CON-
promise the township bonds. We
procured the new funding bonds and
were ready and willing to fund said
debt, but in the mean time the United
States supreme court rendered decis-
ION (Harshman vs. Bates county, de-
| a. 1c 20 t>n
This decision and that OF our state SUI
preme court estopped us from further
action in the matter. Afterward the
United States supl eme court reversed
its decision (JohnsOn vs. Cass county,
thereby declaring said bonds to be
valid-after large amount of interest
had accumulated, our state court still
holding the bonds null and void.
After lapse of six years from the
vote to compromise we were agair
brought to face our creditors as il
shown by the following order of the
county court:
Lafayette county court, Septembs
term, first day, Sept. 4, 1882.
Whereas on the 9th of June, A. d.
1882, committee, representing tn,
, several townships of this county havin:
, a bonded Indebtedness, was, by this
court, appointed at the request of rep
resentative holders of township bonds
, except bonds issued by Lexington
| township, to the Lexington & st. 10
E railroads, to meet and confer with hold
I ers of such bonds and to act in conCer
| with the county court, together witt
e the prosecuting attorney and count.
e clerk; and,
< Whereas, said committee did NEE
= and confer with the holders of sue
+ township bonds on the Goth day o
0 June, A. D., 1882, in the city of st
e Louis, Mo-, and as the result of SAT-
0 conference, did receive proposition
C from said boudholders to compromis
and fund such township bonds at
certain price hereinafter mentioned
and.
Whereas, at special elections, hel
for that purpose, said question of com
c promising and funding such townshi
f bonds, was submitted to the gualifie
: veters of each of said townships havin
: such bonded Indebtedness on the 19t
Q and 26th days of August, A. D., 1882
: and,
= Whereas, a majority of the vote
e cast in each of such townships was i
8 favor of such compromise, the votes o
such proposition having been take
A.