Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1885-04-11

the invitation extended to him, ad.
dressed the meeting at some length
He said that the meeting was caIlec
upon to act upon a very grave anC
important matter, one that was of vita
interest to the property owners ano
taxpayers of the townships involved
that some definite action should bt
taken upon the proposition submitted
by MIR. Skinker, either to secure iti
f adoption by the people, or its rejection in
the same manner. He went on to show
that all legal defenses were exhausted
that all defenses either in law or equity
had been by the United States courts
overruled and formally decided against.
: Mr.. Blackwell said, 81 feel it to be
) my duty to state this fact frankly to
this meeting even though it NAV be q
disagroeable one" He then spoke of
the st. Louis conference of June, 1882,
in which appeared representatives of
the various townships, the county
court the county clerk and the prose-
cutting attorney, and of the results of
that conference, in the terms submitted
and in the compromise of all of the
bonds of Middleton, Freedom and
Davis townships, and of some of the
bonds Of the other townships. He
called attention to the fact that the
Lexington & St. Joseph (bobtaiD bonds
were not considered ct that conference,
as at that time everybody supposed
they were disposed of by Judge Kre-
kePs decision that they were illegally
issued. subsequently, however, the
U. 5. Supreme Court, to the aston
lshment OF lawyers and the people, had
decided these bonds to be legal, valid
and binding, and now they also were
to be reckoned as q factor in the prob
lem to be solved. Hence Lexington
township was now face to face with
threatened township debt of $3.50 900,
IN addition to her other obligations.
We had stood by the St. Louis con-
ference's figures of compromise, and
done our full duty by the terms there
agreed upon. Since that conference
In suit tor 81 900 against Sni-a-bar
township In the United States Circuit
Court, before Judges Krekel and
Breuer, Mr.. Blackwell said that he
had set up the facts of the st. Louis
conference, and that as an arbitration
OF the matter largely sought by the
bsndholders and agreed to by a
majority of their representatives, it
ought to be binding upon all; but the
court could not be brought to that
view and decided that unless Mr..
Skinker's clients themselves agreed to
that compromise they could not be
concluded by 1t, and that therefore the
county judges were in contempt; but
still the court took the answer under
advisement, aud refused for the time
being to comply with Mr.. Skinker's
request that the judges be fined one
thousand dollars each and be impris-
oned until the amounts were paid.
Thereupon Mr.. Skinker made his
proposition of compromise at 81 and
6Scents. In this proposition he had
the earnest support of Judge Krekel,
who stated from the bench that if the
people would accept the terms offered
hs would be with them, but if they
refused he would be against them. Mr..
Blackwell then said to the court that
he could not tell what the people
would say upon the proposition; that
they must speak for themselve upon it {;
but he asked Mr.. Skinker to prepare
his proposition definitely. in writing,
signed by the bondholders or their at
torneys. and that he would endeavor
to have it submitted to the people. AT
| first his idea was that Judge Krekel
and Mr.. Skinker had better be invited
to attend duly accredited delegate
convention to be called by this meet
| ing, but learning that they could better
| come now he had written to them i'll
viting them to do so. He regretted to
say that neither was present and read
the following letters in explanation:
KANSAS CITY, Mo April 4, 1884.
JOHN 5. BLACKWELL, ESQ. DEAR
SIR:-Yours with invitation at hand.
Would comply with wishes of friends,
but court meets on the 9th. Hope that
the meeting may arrive at conclusions
which will close the bond difficulties.
Bondholders and the people are alike
interested in having the matter finally
settled. Very respectfully,
A. KREKEL.
ST. LOUIS, Mo, March 80, 1885.
JOHN 5. BLACKWELL, ESQ. DEAR
SIR:-4Ours Of 23d inst, came duly to
hand. l regret very much the proba-
bilitv, which your letter seems to indi-
cate. that the present attempt at COM
promise is to be a failure. l have
worked faithfully among the bondhold-
ers to accomplish success, Many of
them were very reluctant to assent to
the terms, and were only induced to
come in by the urgent representations
l made them, and particularly by NV
statement that Judge Krekel had said |
from the bench that he would be against
either side that refused to compromise |
at 81 and IS. ALI this class of bond.
holders would be sincerely rejoiced to
know that the compromise had been
rejected by the townships. For nv
part still hope it may be otherwise |
do not believe there is a man among
our people who will ever consent to
take less.
As to the time for the meeting of
course 1t ought to be held as coon as
possible. For reason which I asked |
Mr.. Tllton Davis to state to YOU ysr-
6ally, it Is not likely that can be in
Lafayette before the 25th Of this month.
l had hoped l would have an oppor-
tunlty of addressing the people in
order to clear myself Of the imputation |
OF having gone back on a promise to
settle on the old terms. If an idea of |
this kind is still in the way, would
yet like to do 1t; but If not L think the
meeting had better go on without me.
Perhaps later meeting will be held at
which could be present.
Yours truly,
T. X. SKINKER.
ST. LOUIS, Mo-, April 2, 1885.
JOHN 5. BLACKWELL, ESQ. DEAR
IR:-Yours of yesterday came to hand
day, this afternoon. Gen Hender- |
son is at New Orleans; stated when he
left that he would be back OIL Tuesday
the 7th: doubt if he gets back before |
the 10th.
l don't think we can get Kent to at
tend; he intimsted that he j. locking
after the matter as favor to Draper, !