Mexico weekly ledger., 1896-10-29
CONCERNING cApIrAL REMOVAL.
In q Letter to John D. Orear Attorney
General Walker Says Sedslia's
Bond Does Not Protect the
State of Missouri.


Bond Does Not Protect the
State of Missouri. :.
A few days ago Prosecuting Attor-
ney John d. Orear, of this county,
wrote the following letter to Attorney
General Walker, which explains it,
self:
To r.. F. Walker. Jefferson City. Mo,
MEXICO, Mo-, Oct. 16.-DEAR SIR:
Within the last few days several of
my clients and friends has re been ask
ing me questions in regard to certain
legal obligations and conditions of the
bond offered by Sedalia for the re-
moyal of the capital to that city.
/ viii take it as a great courtesy If
you will give me your opinion in an
swer to these questions:
First-Is the bond filed by Sedalia
with the Governor in the capital re-
moval question any protection to the
State of Missouri?
SecoEd-Has the State of Missouri
any interest in said bond9
Third-Can Sedalia or Pettis county
legally enter into an obligation to the
State of Missouri under the act of
March Is, 1895? If not, can any one
do so for them?
Fourth-Is said bond, SO far as the
State is concerned, void for want of
consideration?
These questions concerning the
bond are much discussed here and
your opinion will, / am sure, be Of
great value.
Very truly yours,
JOHN D. OREAR,
Prosecuting Attorney.
In answer to this Mr.. Orear received
the following reply from the Attorney
General, which should be carefully read
by every voter:
To Mr.. John D. orear, Prosecuting Attorney,
Mexico; Mo.
JEFFERSON CITY, No., October IT,
DEAR SIR: You ask the following
questions:
First-Is the bond filed by Sedalia
with the Governor in the capital re-
moval question any protection to the
State of Missouri?
Second-Has the State of Missouri
any interest in said bond?
Third-Can Sedalia or Pettis county
legally enter into an obligation to the
State of Missouri under the act Of
March IS, 1895? If not, can anyone do
SO for them?
Fourth-Is not said bond, so far as
the State is concerned, void for want
of consideration?
While I have authority to answer
officially, l do not object to doing so
personally.
First and Second-Although there is
an act of the Legislature, laws 1895, p.
So, authorizing the filing of such an
obligation with the Governor, as the
one referred to by you, such a bond,
when filed, affords no protection to
the State. The conditions of the pro-
posed constitutional amendment in re-
gard to the capital removal are that
it does not become operative unless
all such conditions are complied with.
Until such conditions are complied
with, the State can have no possible
interest in the matter, and when they
have been complied with there Is no
breach in the bond. The act of the
Legislature, therefore, insofar as it
purports to afford any protection to
the State by requiring a bond to be
fled with and approved by the Gov
ernor, is mere nullity. This disposes
of your two first questions.
Third-Under the constitution of
this State, neither a county, city or
other smaller political subdivision can
lend its credit, grant public money or
a thing of value in aid of or to any in
dividual, ASSOCIATION or corporation
whatever. See Con. Mo-, sec. Al, art. 4.
This section, rs its terms clearly pro-
vide, prohibits any of the political
subdivisions of the State from obi
eating themselves in any way to any
one, and it, therefore, precludes the
making of such bond as the you
refer to. What cannot be done di-
rectly cannot be done indirectly, and if
a county or other subdivision is pro-
hibited by organic law, as in the case
under consideration, from making a
bond itself, it cannot legally do so
through others.
I am, therefore, of the opinion that
the act of 1896, above cited, is void for
the additional reason that it attempts
to confer a power or the counties and
other political subdivisions, expressly
prohibited by the constitution.
Fourth-Although bonds may be
made payable to the State of Missouri
under the provisions of the act of 1895,
above referred to, the State having no
legal interest in them, they are void
for the want of consideration.
Yours Respectfully,
r. F. WALKER.