Chariton courier. (Keytesville, Chariton County, Mo.) 1878-current, 1898-10-07
SAID in any road district shall be ex-
pended for the improvement of roads
and highways therein in the manner
hereinafter provided"

and highways therein in the manner
hereinafter provided"
''Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When lirst we practice to deceive -
For the enlightenment of the be-
nighted editor of the Charlton County
RebubhcaH and his stybid legal ad-
wiser, the COURIER desires to an
nounce that the honorable county
court of Charlton county has nothing
to do with the assessment and collec-
ton OF taxes for road purposes, further
than to pass upon their proper certif-
cation by the various township boards.
The road tax is tax entirely separate
and apart from the township tax.
The Reba6Hcan quotes the record
correctly when it says that the levy
made by the honorable county court
for the various townships from 1890
to 1898, inclusive, was IS cents on the
500. The RebubHtan might have
said fur her, and still told the truth.
that this levy of IS cents on the $Ioo
from I8oo-93 was in accordance
with the amount of township taxes
certified by the various township
boards as being required for sown-
ship purposes.
In 1894 the court levied 20 cents
on the $1oo fox township purposes
and that amount was extended on the
tax-books for that year. In April,
1894, the supreme court handed down
a decision in which 1t held that the
township tax was part of the county
tax, and that the total tax for county
and township purposes eogad not ex-
coed the constitutional limit, which, |
in Charlton county, is 40 cents
on the $500. When the time
came for the payment of taxes in
the fall Of 1894, 10 or II of the town
ships refused to pay IS cents of the 20
cents levied for township purposes,
which reduced the amount of taxes
collected for township purposes in
these 10 or II townships to five cents
on the $Ioo. These townships declin-
"a TO pay more than the constitutional
limit, which they had s. right to do
under the ruling of the supreme court.
\ majority of the townships repudiated
the payment of three-foBf 5bs OF the 20
cent levy, and the repadfstien of the
levy being in townships that repre-
seuted about Io-2oths of the popula-
ion Of the county, the county court
did not feel warranted in repeating its
experience of 1894 in 1895, and only
evied 10 cents on the $Foe for town
ship purposes. If the amount for t
township purposes were Een 10 to 40
cents on the $Ioo, as falsely claimed 7
1v the Republican, wherein did the
curt violate the lay b. IsvyIng 10 :
-ents? Il
In 1895 section 8,saS Of the town
hip organization law vas so amend {
d as to require counties under ,
ownship organization to build all {
bridges in townships that would +
,ost over $50. The previous town {
hip bridge limit was S1oo. Ittv
gas this drain on the county bridge {
und that led the county eeurt in 1896 a
o increase the levy for the bridge fund {
rom five cents on the SIse, asit was
q 1895, to 10 cents on the $roo, and
n order to keep wisE1&a sk@ constitu-
2onal limit /: was necessary 70 reduce /
he township levies TO FIVE eeats. Find a
~ the five-cent levy, hev%evcr, TO be Y
to the people tne court, )
I 897, again levied 10 ceass - the i
100 for the townships