The weekly intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1891-1901, 1896-05-23
County Seat.

From the Coucordian,
We are under the impression that the
instigators of the project 10 remove Inc
county seat, are in trouble. Several
facts point to this conclusion.
Those who signed the petition to the
county court, asking that the question
of removal be submitted to the voters,
did so on the conditions named in the
Higginsville resolutions-that is-that
Higginsville should furnish a good
valid bond to pay $50, 600, out OF
which IS, 200 was TO be appropriated to
buy a site for the court house on block
one @ in Higginsville.
With great alacrity this petition was
rushed around The county by men,
some of whom were hired by the day
to persuade the people to sign it. The
project seemed to run smoothly until
the mass meeting at Concordia, Blu
shortly after that meeting h petition
disappeared, and we have not been
able to locate it since. The petition
circulators were suddenly overcome
with i~nnocuous desuetude, and mastery
inactivity.
1t was shown at that mass meeting
that the Higginsville proposed bond
was illegal, and could not be enforced
on account of its proposition of undue
influence, and that an election founded
upon an order of the county court sub
hitting such question to the voters
would be void, as being against public
policy and good morals, in that the
proposition tended to corrupt the
voters and prevented, by offering a
pecuniary compensation to them, the
free and untrammeled exercise of the
election franchise.
Hence came the trouble and delay OF
our Higginsville friends. The petition
being framed upon these unlawful con-
ditions, and the voter having signed 1t
with these multiplying provisions in it, 1t
was impolitic for Higginsville to draw
back, and send forth another petition
not containing these conditions and
promises, because such petition would
not be in accord with their promises to
the people upon which she expected to
secure their votes, and because they
, well knew that the taxpayers would mol
sign such new petition, unless the con
ditions aforesaid were in it, and thai
there would be in consequence a failure
, to C the requisite One-fourth OF thu
voters necessary 10 granting h orde'
of election. So they were confronted
with this dilemma: If they should rlsl
a vote on the old petition-althougl
they might carry the election-sucl
election would be set aside as invalid
r if they should undertake to get up
new petition without the illega
promises in it, the voters would no
- - 4NI.n. nnnn fhnu WUnnl
! fail. If they should procure the count
q court to submit the question of remOva
without stating in the order for tn
election the conditions and promises a
made to the people, as set forth in thei
original petition, then their remoYa
project would certainly be voted down
because the taxpayers would not SUI
e port the removal unless they knew ths
the ~extravagant promises of Higgins
vile were binding II were duly ncol
n porated in the order of election. Sc
viewing all phases of he situation
they were sure of defeat in the fin;
" result.
lie Hence a halt was called and the pet
4. ton, like grandfather's clock, "Stoppe
short never to go again"
b. We believe that when the legal pos
&c ton of the gentlemen was revealed
a their innocent eyes by the lawyer
who spoke at the Concordia mass NEE
10 ing, they did not nave the qualitit
u voters upon their petition. We do N
at believe they have since obtained ther
4. and further, that the question
:; removal will not be submitted.
10 There is trouble in the HigginsVil
camp, and fog in the high court
c%hancery.