The state herald., 1901-05-10

Of debt 10 not brought within certain
number Of years the collection Of ths
debt 10 barred. This statute 10 . good
legal defense to the collection Of .
debt and the individual Who PLEADS this
statute 10 defenss Of 40 sotlon to collect
debt cannot, from . legal standpoint,
b. charged with rspudistion yet ths
moral obligation to pay tho debt N Just
u binding upon him q ever. Evea sd-
uniting that this decision Of our su-
prems court settled conclusiveiy the
question Of the validity Of our county
indebtedness, which it dses not " high
or courts have decided otherwise, still
whom the psopls Of Ptillips county re-
fuse to pay Just debts represented BY
our county bonds. they are attempt
ing to rspudiate their moral obligation
10 pay their debt. II this debt had been
contracted through fraud and corruption
on tho part Of county commissioners,
thsrs would then bs some excuse for
invoking the protection OF the oonstitu-
tional limitation which was provided by
our constitutional convention TO protect
the people against fraud and corruption
on the part Of county ofiicsrs. No charge
Of fraud and corruptisn 10 made by th ose
who urge the refusal to pay these bonds
rants for ths good reason that they know
very we'll that no such charge could be
substantistsd. This legal gentleman
who talks 20 glibly about the people ei
the county not being responsible for the
debt represented BY these bonds
should point out to his readers the fraud
that hss bssn prsct,osd upon the tax
payers Of this county in contracting that
debt. Instead OF attempting TO do N,
be attempts to show the people Of this
county how they can escape the pay
ment OF this just debt and that they
should take advantage Of this opportu-
nifty to do 10. A plsinsr proposition for
The people Of the county to repudiats the
moral obligation to pay just debt could
not b made THAI this gentleman makes
In his advocacy Of q refusal to pay the
county bonds. The tax-payers Of what
10 nov phillips county we're unanimously
In favor Of new county and. when the
division OF Logan county was made and
Phillips county organized, Il was ascer'
tanned that 1t not only had not dollar
Of monsy with which to dstrsy the ex.
pessss Of fitting mp county ofiicss and
paying the running expenses for about
eight months Of the year 1879 but IL al
% owed Logan county . debt. Thess
county expenses are part Of this deb'
that the gentleman says We should no,
pay, simply because the county commis
sioners exceeded their authority. The
county commissioners were not responsi
BILE for this condition Of affairs. They
wore elected to Office and were forced te
meet these expenses. Much other in
dobtedpess was unfortunately forced up
on the county that no board OF count,
COMMISSIONER could possible hav,
avoided. AZ no have said before, ,
small part ot this debt wAs incurred
through the bad management and OF
travaganoe Of county officials but i
could not now be separated from thI
just debt. The Holyoks Republican II
perfectly welcome q all Of the glory 4
can secure In advocating . refusal u
pay these bouds but the HERALD In mo-
yst ready 70 advertise itself - . cham
pios Of the rspudiation Of the mora
obligation resting upon the psopls .
Phillips county to pay the jus, debt rep
resented BY the bonds.
We wsre highly pleased With the lees
gsutlemsn's learned dissertation on tn
doctrine Of -osveat emptor". He sssm
to b laborin9 uoder the Impression tha
this single decision Of the state suprem
court 10 the only dscision vs have bea,
iog on that doctrine and that It conclu
sively establishes the fact that the Phil
lips county bonds cannot bs collected
We would remind the gentleman tha
there are other dscisions bearing upo
this question and by courts sf highe
authority than the supreme court Q
Colorado TOO and. before sdvia,ng hi
readers that beyond . possibility Of
doubt the county can escape from th
payment OF the bouds, It would bs vel
Tor him to Ut .ssst r-sd few OF thee
dsc,sions. He will nnd decisions Of tn
United S.atss Circuit Court Of Appeal
and Supreme Court bolding tbss count,
boods issssd under conditions sinilas h
thoss usdsr which tbs Phillips count,
boods vsrs Issued must b paid. tn
case cited By him vill have no bsarinl
vhatsvse % the final settlement Of th
question - 70 whether thsss count,
bonds must bs ps,d bscsuss this qusa
tion will b ssttlsd by the Federal court
and federal court decisions 10 sim
liar cases have bssn strongly in favor o
The validity Of the bouds.
The Rspublscan writer cslls our stten
ton 70 ~ fsot that one attorney Of ou
eova ssys that hs vas not employed Il
any Of The sssss In which Judgment wa
ssksa against the county os the VA
rsuts included 10 thsss bosds. We hav
reason 70 bslisss that vs ssrs mistake,
10 regard 70 this attorney bsins 70 ~
ploysd but he 70 not known 70 have I'd
v'ssd against the ooss'tsut'opai,,y Of ID