The weekly intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1891-1901, 1896-05-02
County Seat.

rEOLu luc SOhCOAoIdh-
The gentlemen from Higglnsville,
who nave brought on the county seal
war against the protestation of every
lover of peace and good feeling in the
county, seem hard to satisfy.
The map-makers and pictorial artists
have not only been kept busy making
picturesque court house plans, but have
also given us a plat of the court house
square in Lexington, in connection
with the assertion that Lexington owned
the square, except that part on which
the closets were located. And this
alleged fact of ownership is urged as
reason for the moving of the county
seat.
They showed great industry and
activity in asserting a claim for Lexing'
ton which Lexington did not make
This disinterested msgnanimity is as
refreshing, as suggestive.
Then came an able article in the
Lexington papers showing c~onclusively
10 every unbiased mind that, not only
did Lexington not claim the ownerohiI
of any part of the square, but giving i
detailed history of the title thereto and
the law bearing thereon. Still the
gentlemen are not satisfied but still
insist against the logic facts that LEX.
ington ownes the square," What is
the object of this? DO the gentlemen
think, or hope, that any rejecting MIND
will be controlled by this. Glamour?
We have now heard from both sides
on this question. From al impartial
standpoint let us suggest a test, so as
to determine where the title of the
square is lodged. 1t is this:
Let the George Washington's OF
Higginsville, who could prevari-
cate, take their little hatchets and go
up to the county seat on some bright,
CHEEKY morn IN May and cut down one
of those beautiful shade trees in the
court house yard. Doubtless they will
then be convinced by subsequent pro-
ceedlngs that Lafayette county owns
the square. Come, gentlemen; give
us a test, or stop complaining.
But, to meet the arguments upon the
ground assumed, let u suppose that
Lexington does wi the court house
squar We all know that the county
seat is now at Lexington. Is the fact
that Lexington owns the square a
reason that it would be advantageous
to the people of the county that the
county seat be removedP Quite the
We know that Lexington
wonts the county seat to remain there.
Therefore Lexington would do no act
which could result in its removal, be-
cause such act would be against her
interest. Her citizens have sense
enough to know that should she set up
any claim to the ownership of the
square and the county buildings there
on, this would arouse such indignation
that the people would speedily vote to
remove the county eat 1t follows,
that as long as the county seat remains
at Lexington-and that may be forever
will never set up any claim to
the square, so that its use for county
purposes will be perpetual. A per-
petual ownership is equivalent to own
ership. But suppose that Lexington
owns the square and the county seat is
removed, will not the county lose not
only the perpetual use of the square,
but all to the buildings Thereon be-
If the county seat is removed,
would not Lexington have the right to
retain her title to the square and all
the buildings thereon, and thus the
county be the loser of one hundred
thousand dollars worth of property?
DO the gentlemen propose to pay the
county for this lossP
If there is any difficulty at all about
this title, it is the better and safer plan
to leave the county seal where 1t is
and save a large mount of money for
The taxpayers.
Let well enough alone.