Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1920-06-10
ANSWER.

AlNO w EN-.
No member OF the Court has any
recollection OF such conversation.
A review of the questions submitted
discloses strange, if disinterested, !,
solicitude for the welfare of the Coun-
| ty Depositary, as well as desire on
your part to show that the Court has
acted from unworthy motives and in
violation of the law.
| While we cannot hope to escape all
/ adverse criticism for our acts we de-
sire to deserve as little as possible and
believe that most citizens will ap.
prove our course when shown the
following facts:
1. The actual sale of the Road
Bonds had not been decided upon
prior to the meeting of the Court on
/ December 31st, 1919, hence there had
been no advertisement of the same.
Neither does the law require it.
2. The Court was informed as to
the current prices being offered for
1 like securities and of the downward
trend of the bond market. In fact,
there was published on that day an
account of the sale of Road Bonds in
an adjoining County, SO that when the
proposition was submitted by the
William R. Compton Company the
Court saw at once that the price
| offered (98) was particularly good,
especially when taken in connection
with the proffer of per cent interest
on the funds, and in view of the situa-
tionl the Court believed that the
offer made was one that should be
accepted and thereupon closed the
deal. The whole transaction was
conducted in open Court. 1t has
developed that no such price could
be had at any time since. Several
Counties have been unable to obtain
even the minimum price of 95 pre-
scribed by law and have therefore not
been able to sell their bonds at all.
Everybody appears to be we'll salts
fed with the Bond sale with the ex-
ception of the Enterprise and the
Bank of Arcadia Valley.
8. The Court has not Disseminated
against the County Depositary in any
particular. The Bank of Arcadia
Valley was selected and designated a
Depositary for County Funds No. /
and and has no contract with the
County covering the Road Bond
Fund.
A. You seem to think the Treasurer
should have deposited this Fund with
the County Depositary, but if this
had been done the tax payers of the
County would have lost and perhaps
that Bank would have gained the neat
sum of $4410, 90 in single year. This
is shown by simple calculation as
follows:
S per cent on sIe6. 1000 amounts to So, Soc
lax on SI96, 900 5,3oc
Loss to the County ty........,...S4, ,4Io
or more than the amount of so called
stdiscountn when the bonds were sold.
1t is not believed that our citizens
would approve such donation oi
their funds even if the Court had the
power to order it and acting upon
that belief the Court has recently re-
fused a demand made by that Bank
| to have said funds transferred to it.
5. We understand it to be the duty
of the Court to guard the interest OF
the County as far as possible and al
the same time comply with the law,
This we have endeavored to do, in
/ the matter of the Road Bond money
as in all other affairs. The action
which you attempt to criticize was
and is to the financial advantage OF
the tax payers of Iron County and we
have no apologies to offer.
/ AS You have already been notified
by Judge Reese this Court does not
propose to engage in newspaper
controversy, therefore, If you have
any further questions to ask please
present them in person to the Court
when it in session.
ADD REESE,
1 VIM. SUTTON,
s. Al. TRASK,
Judges of the County Court.