Macon County, Missouri - Chapter 13, 1910

Chapter 13

Tur Bond InDEBTness - First Susscription TO Missouri AND Missis- SIPPI RAILROAD - MANDAMUS BY Supreme Court COMPELLING Issue or Boxps - Mass MEETING Approves Court's ORDER - Tug Seconp SUBSCRIPTION - GENERAL PROTESTS - DETERMINED Errorrs to Finn Money ro Bump Roap - Lirication Scares FINANCIERS Orr - THE Gnowixa Desr - Errorts ro ÜOMPROMISE - ÜOUNTY COURT AGAINST ir IN 1894 - Proposition ÖVERWHELMINGLY DEFEATED - MR. Gary's PLAN FOR A SETTLEMENT IN 1904 - Srronc Campaign For AND Acamst - ViEws or Born Sipes - Apvocates oF SETTLEMENT DerEATED By SMALL Masorrry - Present STATUS OF THE Desr - Tue LecaL Phase or THE Case.

Direetly following the Civil war the West was characterized by unparalleled business activity. Railroads, faetories, mills and all sorts of enterprises were projected and the work hurried feverishly. It seemed money was plentiful and everybody was anxious to get his share while it lasted. The country had dropped the musket and eagerly grasped the plow. Every train and steamboat brought immigrants to Missouri.

It was in this period that the Missouri and Mississippi railroad was born. Out of it grew the bonded indebtedness which yet hangs over Macon county.

'The subjeet of the M. and M. bonds will be treated historically and then legally. Under the first division will be presented the early stages, the struggle for life and the death of the road, and the latter results of an attempt to compromise the indebtedness. The second division will discuss the record made by the case in the courts during nearly forty years of litigation.

The writer has clearly in mind that there are two sharply defined views concerning this case. One is that the bondholders can never realize materially on their holdings, and that the people of Macon county ean never be made to pay, as they express it, for **something they did not get." The other element contends that the decisions of the courts have been uniformly against the county, and that eventually the debt and interest will have to be paid.

Colonel A. L. Gilstrap was the leading promoter of the Missouri and Mississippi railroad enterprise. He was one of the pioneer residents of Macon county, and noted for his energy and publie spirit. He made known his intention to build the road, which was to run, eventually, from Keokuk, Iowa, to Kansas City by way of Macon. Several parties of means were associated with Colonel Gilstrap. A. B. Hyde was resident engineer. Some time after the organization Major H. S. Glaze became the treasurer. General F. A. Jones of Macon was secretary and general attorney. He was also a large stockholder.

On February 20, 1865, the General embly of the State passed an aet to incorporate the Missouri and Mississippi Railroad Company, to build a railroad from Macon City through Edina, Knox county, to or near the northeast corner of the State, in the direction of Keokuk, lowa, or Alexandria, Missouri. Afterwards the company was authorized to extend its road southwest from Macon to some point on the Missouri river. By the act referred to it was made ''lawful for the County Court of any county desiring so to do, to subscribe to the capital stock of the company and issue bonds therefor, and levy a tax to pay the same, not exceeding one-twentieth of one per cent upon the assessed value of the taxable property for each year."

The Macon County Court subscribed $175,000 to the stock of the road on April 2, 1867, without submitting the matter to a vote of the people. In the fall of that year the Supreme Court of the State, by peremptory writ of mandamus, compelled the County Court to issue bonds in payment of the subscription.

From articles in the local papers of that date the first subscription seems to have been popular. "The people were anxious for railroads, and it was thought the new project would prove an important auxiliary in building up the eounty. At a largely attended mass-meeting at Macon, presided over by General F. A. Jones, these resolutions were adopted:

"Resolved, That we have heard with feelings of great pleasure of the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri ordering a peremptory mandamus to the County Court of Macon county to issue the amount of stock subseribed to the Missouri and Mississippi Railroad in the bonds of said county.

co-operate and unite in all legitimate measures for the early completion of said road and urge upon the citizens of the counties North, East and South of Macon, interested in the Missouri and Mississippi Railroad, to earnestly press the subject upon the attention of the officers of their respective counties and the community generally." (From the Macon Argus, reporting a meeting held October 25, 1867.)

"The railroad meeting at the Court House last Friday night was a spontaneous outpouring of the people to testify their gratification at the successful eulmination of the suit establishing the legality of the subseription to the Missouri and Mississippi Railroad. No sooner had the telegraph announced the decision than the news spread over town like fire upon a prairie, and a meeting was called at once to give expression to the feelings of the people. All seemed to partake in the general rejoicing, believing that the success of the road would add universally to the wealth and prosperity of both city and county. W. Henry's speech was full of telling points and reached ehords that vibrated the audience like an electric shock,"

It is stated by a party who seems to have been in touch with the early operations of the road that the first appropriation was only expected to be used in bridging, the purchase of ties and grading. It was hoped by then some eapitalists wonld be found to take hold of the enterprise, lay the steel, equip the road with rolling stock, ereet stations, ete. The right-of-way and the work done upon it would be offered as seeurity for the future investment. But wages and material were high, and the first subscription by the counties proved inadequate to build the roadbed. Some work had been done northeast of Macon, and the roadbed constructed from Salisbury to Glasgow.

A call was made on the Macon County Court for a second appropriation of $175,000. This came in the shape of a motion filed with the eourt in February, 1870, by Judge James A. Clark, then attorney for the road. Judges Alderman and Roberts were still on the county bench. Judge C. P. Hess was the new member, who succeeded Judge Atterberry.

Judicial Circuit, Judge Hess stated that he strongly opposed this second issue of bonds from the first, but when he saw they were going to be issued over his objection, he named important conditions contingent upon his favoring the issue, the conditions being a pledge for the faithful use of the money and that the shops be located at Macon, and

The second subscription was not popular. Meetings in protest were held all over the county. Suits were instituted to stop the issue of bonds. At the same time there were those insisting on the County Court that the second subscription was absolutely necessary, else the amount contributed in the other subscription would be lost in the collapse of the road. The second subseription was made May 2, 1870, amid considerable exeitement.

The opponents of the issue declared the first money had not been honestly used in construction work, and that the second subscription would likewise fail of its purpose.

It was not long before the road landed in hard lines again. The bonds were seattered, being bought up by investors in many of the large cities. Still the supply of money was inadequate. Contractors filed liens and attached everything they could find. At one time a consignment of steel was shipped to Macon, in care of Major Glaze, the treasurer, with instructions not to let it leave his possession without the money. During his temporary absence from the city some of the track builders seized the steel and laid it on the ties north of town. For a very short time the Missouri and Mississippi railroad actually possessed a piece of track. But when Major Glaze returned, he made them tear up the track and place it baek in his possession until paid for. Part of the steel was eventually used in laying the Wabash track from Salisbury to Glasgow.

Some agents of the railroad company, in a determined effort to raise funds, went to London and opened negotiations with some financial men there, with fair prospects of success, it is said, when a notice appeared in the London Times to the effect that investors in M. and M. securities would buy a law-suit. This closed the money boxes of London. Afterwards a man by the name of Vandewater, a contractor of Pana, Illinois, and some St. Louis men eame up to look over the situation. These parties made an attempt to handle the property, and, it is said, had arranged with Brayton Ives, a railroad builder of New York, to raise the funds for the steel and rolling stock. One of the syndieate was connected with a rólling mill where rails were made. The bankers of New York were about to close a deal for advancing the necessary money when a telegram came to Ives from Missouri stating there was imminent danger of suits all along the line. So Ives stood from under and passed from the stage as a figure in M. and M. history.

Clark eounty, and a stockholder from Knox county, made a final effort, and attempted to lay some steel, but the rolling mill people demanded the eash, and the work stopped. That seems to have been the last attempt at construction. It is said that many of the men who had taken active hold of the enterprise at the start lost nearly all their fortune. The road was dead, but the bonds still lived.

From the beginning of the suits to recover on these bonds the eounty's sentiment was strongly against a settlement. The people had received nothing; in equity they should be required to give nothing. That was the argument here.

"The bondholders kept their judgment alive and added up their interest. "There were those who said quietly that the debt was eolleetible, but it was not popular to make such a statement in publie.

That was the situation when Gen. John B. Henderson of Washington, T. K. Skinker, Gen. James M. Lewis, St. Louis, S. A. Saunders, Springfield, Illinois, and Daniel R. Kinder, Litchfield, Illinois, all attorneys representing M. and M. bondholders, visited Macon in November, 1894, and began to take soundings regarding a compromise of the debt, at that time amounting to $1,100,000. They petitioned the County Court (Judges W. H. Terrell, Gran Goodson and Hammond Ward) to order an election on a proposition to settle at fifty-nine and three quarters, payable in new five per cent bonds of Macon county.

The names of 215 resident tax-payers were signed to the petition. In a statement isued by the County Court it stated that in accordance with the law it would be required to order an election, but **we do most emphatieally oppose the adoption of said proposition, for the reason we believe the rate named in said proposition to be entirely too high and unjustifiable under the circumstances."

There was not much of a campaign. It was clearly apparent, even to the bondholders' attorneys, that the proposition would be defeated. The vote against the proposition was 5,020; in favor of it, 67. Most of those signing the petition for an election did not vote, or voted against the compromise.

In 1904 Mr. Theodore Gary, after the expenditure of considerable time and means, presented a plan by which it was hoped, and claimed, that all of the indebtedness on the M. and M. bonds could be settled for eighteen cents on the dollar. At that time the total debt was a little over $1,600,000. Tt was figured that at eighteen cents on the dollar it eould be settled for $300,000, or $50,000 less than the original subseription by the Macon County Court to the M. & M. bonds. Mr. Gary, in his usual eareful manner, began a systematie eampaign. He succeeded in interesting a large number of men of affairs in all the townships, and a committee of fifty was appointed to work up interest in the projeet of compromising and settling the-debt. In May there was a meeting of the committee and citizens in the rooms of the Macon Commercial Club. This meeting was attended by General John B. Henderson of Washington and Arthur C. Huidekoper of Meadville, Pennsylvania, two large holders of the M. & M. indebtedness. Both General Henderson and Mr. Huidekoper stated at that meeting that they would accept eighteen cents on the dollar in settlement of their holdings. There was a vote of the committee, all of whom went on record as unanimously favoring the proposition.

Mr. Gary stated that in 1901 he personally saw nearly all of the bondholders, and that he only met two who would not acept the compromise. Since then he understood one of these men who held about $22,000 was willing to come in. Mr. Gary stated that no very considerable amount would stay out of the compromise.

Mr. A. W. Gilstrap said that Mr. Gary had been acting as the official agent of Macon county in this matter and had doubtless been put to a great deal of trouble and expense. He wanted to know whether Mr. Gary would have a claim on Macon county for the trouble he had been to and whether he would be paid by the other side of the house.

To this Mr. Gary replied that he never expected to ask Macon county to pay him a cent commission. He supposed that the creditors would pay him something, not in any case more than five per cent would he ask for.

Mr. Gary went on to state that he was willing for the committee to know everything that he had done, and said all the correspondence he had was subject to investigation at any time; that he had no claim whatever against Macon county.

In a letter to the Macon Republiean the following week Harry M. Rubey stated that his name had been erroneously placed upon the committee list, and that he was not a member of it. He said, however, that he was in favor of compromising the debt at eighteen cents on the dollar, 'if it can be effected in the right way, and I will do all I can to accomplish it as a private eitizen who is interested, because I am a proeprty owner and taxpayer, and because I think it's to the best interest of the county."

There was a meeting of the committee of fifty and eitizens of Macon county in the Circuit Court room on November 21, 1904. This was the opening gun of the campaign on the eompromise issue. The meeting was ealled to order by J. J. Davis, ehairman. R. G. Mitehell acted as secretary.

**Tn the event the compromise is voted by the citizens of Macon county, a committee who will be owners of $100,000 par of the registered warrants now registered against the county, being the first of such warrants registered, will not cancel these warrents, but will give an option to the county to purchase them at eighteen cents on the dollar whenever the remaining outstanding debt comes in at the same price, depositing said warrants with a copy of the option and agreement with a trustee to be named by the court, with an understanding with the eounty that the M. & M. fund of one-twentieth of 1 per cent shall continue to be levied until the outstanding indebtedness is settled to the satisfaction of the county, and that all of the M. & M. fund shall be applied to the payment of interest at par on the warrants deposited with the trustee. The trustee to be instructed to pay the owners of the $100,000 warrants 6 per eent on the $18,000 until principal of $18,000 and six per cent interest is paid; the county agreeing not to issue any more small warrants or to lend assistance to taxes being paid in M.& M. warrants. "Trustees to be authorized to collect the interest, first pay the interest on the $18,000 and to deposit balance in the county treasury, all sums colleeted as interest on the par value of the warrants over and above the amount necessary to pay the interest on uncaneelled warrants under this agreement at 18 cents on the dollar. Then continue to run the county's finances as it has been done heretofore in all matters except in the matter of the M. & M. fund, which will be collected and paid into the treasury in cash and drawn out on the registered warrants. This plan permits the county to continue to levy the one-twentieth of 1 per cent and provides its absorption as interest on the warrants. The interest on warrants being more than the income from the M. & M. fund makes an effeetual bar to anyone except the holders of these registered warrants from drawing anything from this fund.

"The advantages of proceeding with a compromise seem to me to be, without a single exception, all in favor of the county. In the first place, if we are able to prevent the creditors from receiving anything at al! on a million and a half dollar debt, we ean continue to do so on $150,000, provided we absorb the M. & M. fund, and this plan fully provides for that. In the event new litigation is brought and is successful, the county would not be liable for any amount except the $150,000, while now, if the ereditors are successful in any new action, they would have a claim against us in excess of $1,500,000.

"It is thought as soon as those standing out for a higher rate learn they are successfully barred, they would come in and accept the compromise. I am told by a man who has probably had more to do with compromises than any other man living, in some eighty-odd compromises, in no instance but one was all the debt brought in when compromise was first voted, and in that instance they paid 85 cents, and in no instance have any of the creditors who stood out been able to get more than the compromise price.

'In adopting this plan, there would be no new point to litigate. The ground has been threshed over. We would not change our plan of handling the business; we would continue to levy one-twentieth of 1 per cent and the general fund is all taken up by general expenses. This should be continued until such a time as we could settle the outstanding: debt at the compromise priee of 18 cents on the dollar, with interest to December 31, 1904. By taking up $1,450,000 of the debt, the remainder would not be worth one cent more than it is now, provided the one-twentieth of 1 per cent is absorbed, because a debt against Macon county for $1,500,000 with power to enforce collection is just as good as one for $150,000. The county is perfectly good for either amount. The impression has gotten out that to cancel a part of the debt enhances the value of the balance. This would be true if the $5,000 derived from the speeial M. & M. tax is available; if not, then it is not true. It would not be true because all the special tax would be absorbed.

** Tn view of all the facts, I recommend that we submit the proposition to a vote, because I fear that this very favorable settlement ean never be obtained again for a majority of these judgments standing against Macon county. The facts seem not to be realized, as straight judgment of hundreds of thousands of dollars lying against a perfectly solvent county, one that is amply able to pay dollar for dollar if a plan should be discovered by the ereditors to enforce settlement. Suppose this was an individual matter, what would you do? Let us treat this at elose range. At least, let us use our influenee for rational eonservative aetion. I am so well acquainted with the faets and the private opinion of some of our local attorneys, some of them are now present, that I want to earnestly urge careful consideration. I am now talking to you as a eitizen interested only, as you are, in the best interests of the eounty, because, so far, not a ereditor has agreed to pay me one eent and I pledge you my word and honor I don't know that they will ever agree to do so. It's all I could do to get them to agree to the 18 cents.

"T leave the whole matter in the hands of the committee. Whatever they do, I shall cheerfully abide by, but my last word is to be eareful. Don't turn this chance to cancel over 90 per cent of this judgment debt at 18 cents on the dollar down without submitting it to a vote, unless you feel like you will be in a position to defend your action. For my part I want to go on record here and now in favor of submitting and working for a compromise for as much of the debt as we can get in at the price, and fight the balance until we can get it at the compromise price."

Major B. R. Dysart, R. G. Mitchell, Ben Franklin and others spoke in favor of Mr. Gary's plan. A motion was made and unanimously adopted to present the petition to the County Court asking for an order of eleetion on the compromise proposition as set out.

The petition was presented to the County Court the follows Monday. As representatives of the petitioners were Web M. Rubey, B. R. Dysart, R. G. Mitehell, Ben Franklin, W. S. Watson, Dr. E. B. Clements, A. W. Gilstrap, John Seovern, J. B. Goodding, W. E. Floyd, "Theodore Gary, E. MeKee, Major S. G. Brock, Dr. F. W. Allen, A. S. Ray, Judge J. J. Davis, J. H. Wright and others.

A eampaign in the interest of the compromise was swiftly begun. Meetings were held in Macon nearly every week and speakers were sent out over the county. The Macon papers and most of those in the towns of the county favored the compromise. The Macon papers reported all the meetings at the county seat in full, hiring a special stenographer for the purpose.

Cireuit Judge Shelton spoke at Macon, La Plata and other places, urging the citizens to vote for the compromise in the interest of their property. There was a counter-campaign by those opposing the compromise on the Gary plan. They held meetings here and all over the eounty in the same manner as did those favoring the compromise. Among the leaders who opposed the compromise were Fred L. Thompson, county school superintendent; James W. White, R. S. Matthews, N. M. Moody, Joseph Park, Dr. T. J. Norris, P. M. Gross, Paul Burton, eounty elerk, and Dr. C. W. Reagan. These gentlemen insisted that they were not opposed to a settlement of the debt, but that they did not think Mr. Gary's plan was in all respeets what it should be.

**One very important point for the voter to take into consideration is whether or not he is in favor of settling a part of this debt and leaving unsettled as much as $160,000 to $170,000 of said debt. I honestly believe that to settle a part of this debt, as proposed, will have the effect. of making that part of the debt unsettled more valuable.'' at 18 cents confidently believed that, inasmuch as the bondholders had litigated the county for more than thirty years and had failed, they had in that time certainly exhausted every legal means to which they could resort, and that therefore they could not force the payment of their claims.

"They had been taught that the county could legally pay all its necessary current expenses before it could be required to apply any of the county revenue on the payment of the M. & M. debt.

"They believed that the county could never be compelled to levy and collect more than 55 cents on the hundred dollars for all purposes, ineluding county expenses and the payment of the bonded debt, whether that debt was in the shape of bonds, judgments or warrants, that being provided for by the statutes.

"They also believed that the county revenue would not increase more rapidly than the growth of county expenditures and, consequently, there would be nothing left to apply on the debt.

**A great many believed that a considerable portion of the debt would not come into the compromise and that to compromise a portion of the debt would be bad poliey, for the part of the debt that remained unsettled would be greatly enhanced in value and would force the county to make the same levies and continue the same taeties that had been resorted to for years.

"Quite a few, doubtless, thought that, inasmuch as the bond-holder was offering to settle at 18 cents, it was good proof that he had abandoned all hope of ever being able to force the payment of his claim.

"Tt is a fact that cannot be disputed that the legal procedure being pursued by the bondholders at the time of this publication could have been resorted to at any time since the bond litigation begun, with the same effect as now. It therefore follows that all have been deceived as to our legal status in the matter of the M. & M. bonded debt."

The balance remaining out was one of the main points in the controversy. It was answered again and again by the advocates of the eompromise by stating that practieally all of the debt would come in, and that the balance could be so handled that the holders would not realize any more than those who eame in. Other eontentions of those urging a settlement will be treated under the legal subdivision. Among the more prominent advoeates and workers in the interest of the eompromise were E. McKee, Ben Eli Guthrie, Major B. R. Dysart, R. G. Mitchell, Ben Franklin, R. A. Guthrie and all the member of the committee of fifty. The vote was cast Friday, December 30, 1904, with the following result :

"The men who favored the defeated proposition have had their inning. It is now the turn at the bat of the men who opposed the compromise. If they do not wish to be set down as irresponsible leaders and as men unsafe to follow, they will proceed at once to seeure for the people a better proposition under which we can get rid of the debt. They told the people of this county if they would vote down the 18 cents compromise they could get rid of the debt much cheaper. We assume they were sincere. We therefore urge that they now go to work and secure this better proposition. They owe it to themselves - they owe it to the people."

Immediately upon the failure to settle, the bondholders put their attorneys to work and suits of various eharaeters were instituted against the county and pressed with vigor. These suits are now pending in the Federal Courts.

The following table of the M. & M. indebtedness was prepared by Tatlow & Mitehell, Springfield, Missouri, attorneys for the judgment ereditors :

Drawing Interest And The Amount Of Interest The Same Would Draw If It Were Compounded

STATEMENT SHOWING TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS OF MACON COUNTY, MISSOURI, EXCLUSIVE OF COSTS, JANUARY 1,1910; THE AMOUNT DRAWING INTEREST AND THE RATES OF SAME; THE AMOUNT NOT DRAWING INTEREST AND THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST THE SAME WOULD DRAW IF IT WERE COMPOUNDED.

Legal Phases. (By Ben Eli Guthrie.) The Legislature of Missouri, in February, 1865, passed an act incorporating the Missouri and Mississippi Railroad Company and authorizing the counties by their county courts to subscribe to the capital stock thereof, and to levy a tax of one-twentieth of 1 per cent to pay the same. At that time the County Court levied for its ordinary running expenses 50 cents. It was generally understood that this included road purposes. But, oddly enough, in 1868 the Legislature passed a road law, which, it is claimed, authorized the County Court to levy an additional tax of 40 cents as a special road fund. The fact is, however, that after the passage of that act Macon County did levy 40 cents for road purposes up to and including the year 1871, or at least under this act or some other act it levied a special road tax in addition to the common fund of the county.

In April, 1867, the County Court of Macon County, under the act above named, did subscribe for $175,000 of the capital stock of said railroad company and thereafter refused to issue its bonds to pay for the same under the terms of the act. The railroad company applied to the Supreme Court of Missouri for a mandamus compelling the court to issue the bonds in accordance with its order. This case appears in the

It is well to remark that at the time these bonds were issued, in 1867, the assessed value of the taxable property of the county was $5,145,810 and that in 1872 the assessed value was only $5,466,434. In 1870 it was only $4,874,467.

Another eurious thing conneeted with the legal history of these bonds is that, early in 1870, the Legislature passed an act to amend this act, incorporating the Missouri Mississippi Railroad Company and inereased the rate of taxation from one-twentieth of 1 per cent to one-half of 1 per cent. This act was enrolled and properly certified to the governor. The governor has a recollection of the bill being before him and of an intention to sign it, but he could never recolleet signing it, and the signed bill never got to the Seeretary of State's office, and consequently never became a law. It has, therefore, cut no figure in the litigation. It does show that the Legislature interpreted the act of 1865 as eonfining the bondholder to the fund arising from the levy of onetwentieth of 1 per cent, and finding later that that was not enough, they undertook to amend the aet and inerease the rate 50 cents to the one hundred dollars.

"On the 2d of May, 1870, the County Court of Macon county took an additional $175,000 of the capital stock of the railroad and, without mandamus, issued its bonds to pay for the same. This is the subscription over which the popular indignation was aroused. In 1872 a new County Court was elected, which, for the year 1873, levied only 50 cents on the hundred dollars for the common fund, and 5 cents for the M.& M.fund. And so the coupons on the bonds went to protest because of want of funds to pay them.

In 1873 action was brought by mandamus against the County Court to compel them to levy a special tax to pay the coupons on bond No. 1 of the first issue. The trial court held that they could only levy a special tax of one-twentieth of 1 per cent and no more. "This opinion was affirmed by the Supreme Court and is reported in the 56 Mo., 126. This is one of the leading cases connected with the litigation.

Other counties besides Macon subseribed to this stock, among them being Clark and Knox. Default was made in these counties about the same time, and one Johnson obtained judgment against Clark county and went to the County Court of that county with his judgment and demanded a warrant on the common fund to pay the same. This was refused. He then sued out his mandamus in the Federal Cireuit Court, which followed the Supreme Court of Missouri in the 56 Mo. and held that he was confined to the proceeds of one-twentieth of 1 per cent. The bond holder then appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States and the case is reported in the 96 U. S., 211, in which the court holds that the bonds were a general debt on the county, and that the judgment ereditor was entitled to a warrant on the common fund to pay his judgment.

In the meantime Alfred Huidekoper had obtained a judgment in the Federal Circuit Court against Macon eounty and he brought two separate mandamus proceedings against the county to secure the payment of his judgment, to-wit: one to levy a special tax and the other to issue him a warrant on the common fund. The first of these cases was decided in favor of the county. Mr. Huidekoper appealed. The second was decided in favor of Mr. Huidekoper and the county appealed. The first case is reported in the 99 U. 2, and the opinion therein follows the Shortridge ease, and the levy of the special tax was denied. The second case, however, followed the Clark county ease in the 96 U. S. and held that Mr. Huidekoper was entitled to a common fund warrant. Upon the return of this ease the County Court refused to obey the summons and made a further and additional return as a reason why it should not issue its warrant. This return the trial court overruled and the county appealed again to the Supreme Court. The ease was heard in that eourt in connection with four cases from Knox county and the opinion affirms the Clark county case in the 96 U. S., and says that the warrant must be issued. Judge Waits uses this significant language:

The mandate in this case got back to the court in April, 1884, and quite a number of other mandates of like character were also brought to bear at that time, and on the 29th of that month the court issued thirteen warrants under such mandates and they were presented to the treasurer at the same time and registered as the law requires.

In 1885 Mr. Huidekoper, by supplemental information in said cause, had a further writ issued against the court showing that they had not levied the full 50 cents on the hundred dollars, and demanding an additional levy of 20 cents, and also certain other motions, bringing up all the proceedings of the county court, the collector and the treasurer during the years 1884 and 18 The result of this was that the

Federal Cireuit Court ordered a levy of the extra 20 cents and also that the surplus money in the treasury on the 29th day of March, 1884, be pro-rated to the thirteen warrants. This case was appealed by the county, and is reported in 134 U. S. 332, in which the judgment was affirmed and in obedience to that in 1890 the $14,000 remaining in the treasury was disbursed and the extra levy was made and pro-rated among the several warrants.

The opinion of Judge Brewer in the trial court in this ease is found in the 75 Fed. Rep., 259, which is very pertinent in showing the views of the Federal Court on the question.

During the time the proceedings reported in the 134 U. S. were in progress Mr. Hudson, a citizen of Macon county had a $10 warrant against the contingent fund of the county and he undertook to mandamus the treasurer, Mr. Trammel, and the trial court decided in Mr. Hudson's favor and Trammel appealed the case. This judgment was affirmed in the Supreme Court of Missouri and Trammel filed motion for rehearing, whieh was granted, and the original opinion was withdrawn and the opinion reported in the 106 Mo., 510, substituted, by which the action of the lower court was reversed. This case is one of the strongest cases against the county and is much relied upon by Mr. Huidekoper's counsel.

It is necessary to state here that, in addition to the thirteen warrants on the common fund, there were special warrants issued on the M. & M. speeial fund, among whieh were warrants in favor of Alfred Huidekoper, Fred Huidekoper and Charles Stratton. These parties, in 1891, sued out additional mandamuses on their judgments, complaining that the warrants were not paid and that the M. & M. fund was collected in small warrants drawn against said fund and that no money came into it and that the County Court had no right to issue small warrants. 'lhese matters were heard in the Cireuit Court before Judge Thayer, who rendered an opinion holding that the collector had a right to receive these special warrants in payment of special taxes and that the County Court had a right to issue small warrants under the Act of 1873, and that that aet was not unconstitutional as against the relators, although it was passed after their bonds were issued. He held, further, that a warrant could be assigned to more than one person and that, though the assignments not be in the form, yet it was sufficient after it had been received by the collector and treasurer and settlement had been made with the County Court. This opinion was not appealed from and is the law today as between the parties to that proceeding and the property eovered by said proceeding.

The county officers have been acting more or less under that inter pretation of the revenue law and the interpretation given in the case of Winterbottom, 123 U. S. 215, whieh went up from Knox county and was an action on the collectors bond for having received warrants without their being properly assigned. The practices arising under the interpretation of these two cases have given rise to the present litigation.

From March, 1891, when the Thayer opinion was rendered, up to April, 1909, litigation ceased and the county practiced the methods indicated in the Thayer and Winterbottom cases, but no money went into the treasury.

In 1909 two proceedings were started. The one was a mandamus against the state and county boards to raise the assessments and to compel those Boards to assess the property of the state and county of Macon at its full eash value. In the Federal Cireuit Court, Judge Dyer held that the courts had no jurisdietion in such matters; that the revenue system in Missouri granting appeals to persons who thought they were injured by the assessor to the Boards of Equalization and from the Boards of Equalization to the Court of Appeals was a complete system in itself and did not brook the interference of the courts. Mr. Huidekoper appealed his case, and in March, 1910, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and sent the ease baek for answer and trial on its merits.

The second proceeding was a Bill in Equity, filed in April, against the County Court, County of Macon, colleetor, treasurer and the clerk, charging conspiracy and fraud and raising all the questions covered by the various preceding litigation and some new ones. The bill was answered and reference had to the Hon. Walter M. Boulware, who filed a long and able report in March, in which he gave the county certain running expenses, such as for the poor, the indigent, salaries of officers, judicial expenses, but forbade the use of any money for roads and bridges and other improvements of a permanent character, and enjoined the county from doing many things and ordered them to do many other things.

This matter is now pending in the Federal Circuit Court at Hannibal, Missouri, on exceptions filed by both Mr. Huidekoper and the defendants, and the sons of the prophets will have to have a meeting to divine the future of this litigation.

These are the facts in regard to the litigation. It is put in the most general way, because any partieular account of them would cover many pages. It is idle now to speculate about what will be the result, save it is always safe to say that the hazard of carrying this debt. inereases with the years. The Legislature of Missouri has done us more harm than anybody else, because every member of the Legislat must have something to do with the fiseal system of the state, and every time that is touched Macon county is injured, so far as this debt is concerned.