Morris tribune., 1905-11-11
SEED GRAIN LOANS
INTERVIEW WITH COUNTY At
TORNEY BICKNELL.
In Saturdays Pioneer Press, He
Explains that the Commission
ers Cannot Pay.

vens county is indebteded to the
that the seed grain was received b!
farmers in the county, and he is o.
the opinion that the county gave
bonds to cover the receipt of some
of the grain, but as he believes thai
as the seed grain laws are unconsti.
tutional, the county board acted with
out authority; that the residents OF
the county to-day are not responsible
morally and that no legal obligation
rests upon them. Interviewed regard
ing the matter Mr. Bicknell to-day
said:''
Contrary to the statements in
newspaper articles, the state Officials
have known for several years the
position taken by Stevens county.
The matter was publicly discussed
more than two years ago, and an ar
ticle appeared on page II of the Of
flee blotter for September, 1903.
In the newspaper articles refer
red to it is stated that the state has
loaned money to Stevens county in
different years, amounting to 81, 633.25,
which is covered by bonds now in the
state treasurer's office, and that
said county now repudiates the debt.
In this the writer has been misin-
formed, for the state has never loan
ed any money to this county.
''In the year 1889 the legislature
passed an act to furnish seed grain
provided that the farmers should make
application for a loan direct to the
state, and a contract was made be-
tween the farmers and the state to-
repay the state for the value of the
seed grain. On account of conyen-
ience certain town and county Off
cials were designated to transact the
business for the state and the farm
ers, such as receiving the money from
the state, buying the seed, receiving
applications, collecting the money, re-
turning it to the state, etc. The act
also provided that the board of coun-
ty commissioners should issue bondsI
of the county for the amount of mon
ey paid out for the seed grain fur
nished to the farmers of the county.
Under this act a few farmers in Ste
yens county were furnished with
seed grain by the state.
In the year 1891 another act of
the legislature, similar to the one
above stated, was passed and few
farmers in Stevens county again We're
provided with seed grain, and l am
informed and believe that the board
of county commissioners issued bonds
as provided by the act of the legis-
lature of that year, altho there is
nothing of record in this county show
ing that fact.
In 1885 the legislature again pass
ed a similar act, except that there
was no provision for issuing county
Londs, and a few farmers in Ste
vens county again received seed grain
frcn tie state. The total amount
claimed by the state is S4,S33.25,
which with interest now would
amount to about 100000
In this matter we must make
distinction between the county itself
and the citizens in the county. The
county itself received no funds and
received no benefit from any funds. :
The loan was not made to paupers
and it cannot be claimed that the l
county itself received any benefit
whatever from the loans to these in
iiyiduals. 1t is generally known that
.hese seed grain acts are unconstitu-
ional, but the individuals receiving c
he seed are liable to pay for the
anie. Stevens county having receiv- =
d no loan from the state and no 7
ienefit, is not liable for the debt of :
hese individuals, and the state has !;
10 legal claim whatever against this
ounty. The so called bonds of this
ounty were issued without any con-
liberation whatever and without any
uthority whatever, the act Of the T
egislature having been declared I'M !,
institutional. An unconstitutional :
tatute is not law and it is Of no :,
lore saving effect to justify action {
aken under it than as tho it had :,
ever been enacted The county -
of this county had no .,
uthority whatever to issue bonds of -
lis county in this matter unless au- +
loized by law. There being no law x
lthorizing them to issue bonds the :,
, called bonds are void and no "
,unty officer has any right to pay 10
lem. fc
aWhen this matter came UP two