Chariton courier. (Keytesville, Chariton County, Mo.) 1878-current, 1899-03-10
Township Organization.

subject that I think is somewhat mis-
leading. I wish to be perfectly fair
in this matter, and presume the edl-
tor of the COURIER also does. There
fore 1 will ask few questions that 1
wish him to answer in all candor and
fairness.
First-Is It not fact that counties
under township organization are en-
powered under the constitution TO
make the same levyJ0j all purposes as
those not under such organization?
Granted that this is true, then the
difference is just this: The money for
1.0ad purposes III counties under town
ship organization is expended by mem
bers of township boards, while in
counties not having this system i: is
expended under the direction of the
county court, Township board mem
bers receive $1.5o for their services,
while judges of the county court get
S. and mileage. Which is the
cheaper!
Second-Is it not a fact that the
supreme court decision, of which so
much has been said, referred directly
| 10 local Ieyies made by township
! boar ds, and in no way affected the
sum total that county courts could
/ levy, whether the counties were Under
to wnshIp organization or nol2 In
short I hold that before this decision
was made counties under township
organization had this local levy in ad-
dition to what the constitution allowed
/ county courts to make in counties not
so organized. The decision. as I un-
derstand It, just places our county and
others so organized on a par with
those not under township organization.
Thirds it not 2 fact that the last
Legislature passed a law permitting
county courts to set aside only 20 per
cent of the county funds for township
purposes This being a legislative
enaCtm ent it could be repealed. and
then county courts could set aside for
townships a fair share Of the county
revenue. | will cheerfuly admit that
under the present valuation the con-
stitutional limit is too small to carry
on county and township affairs as they
should be; but, as suggested in the
COURIER a few weeks ago, l think the
remedy lies in the county board of
equalization raising the valuation to
such an extent that a sufficient reve-
nue. would be produced.
have just received a copy of the
amendments to the township laws, in
troduced by Mr.. Ellis, and now before
the legislature. 1 think it quesuona-
BILE whether that part of section s re-
ferring to the levy on real estate and
personal property by township boards
would stand a supreme court test, and
so expressed myself to our representa-
tive in a letter yesterday. However,
we should remember the supreme
courts decision in reference to a SINH
lar section in the old law was by no
means unanimous, and as there have
been some changes in the makeup OF
the court since that decision was rem
dered we have no means of knowing
what the decision would he now.
Col. G.. w. Waters, who prepared a
road law for the consideration of the
present legislature, admitted to me
last fall that counties not under town.
ship organization (and he lives in one
- Lewis are handicapped for want
of funds just as we are in this county.
He further said we were better off
than they were, as he believed local
boards could spend the money to bet
ter advantage than county courts. He
emphasized this idea in his bill by
providing for road districts in counties
not under township organization in
which the funds were to be expended
by three road commissioners elected
for this purpose. In conclusion 1 will
say that Col. Waters has taken a deep
interest in road affairs, and the past
few years has been all over the state,