Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1854-01-12
STATE OF TENNESSEE.


STATE OF TENNESSEE,
DAVIDSON County.
personally appeared before me- the undersigned of
the Judges of the Circuit Court for aforesaid Ar
chbad Mills Esq, President of the Memphis Charles
Railroad Company and Agent appointed BY said Com
pany receive the bonds be issued by he Governor of
the State according to act passed 18th February 1882
entitled I'm act to establish u of internal improve
in this State who makes oath that the bonds he is
about receive from the Governor under the provisions of
said act shall not be used for any other purpose than for
procuring the rails chairs spikes, and equipments
for the section upon which the bonds issued and for
putting down said iron rails. A Z. MILLS,
President and Agent NJ. & c. R Co."
Sworn TO before me, October 4h, 1862 W. W. PEPPER,
Judge DC
Now, from the foregoing it will be seen that Gov.
CAMPBELL imposed upon Gen. Mills the necessity
of swearing that the S240,OO0 should only be used
moi TO pay for but-for the purpose of PROCURING
the iron rails &c The affidavit is in strict com
pliancs with the second section Of the act relating
the issuance of the bonds under the general pro-
visions of the law Thus it is made to appear that
Gov. CANPBELLs action is in direct conflict with
the 'act outside Of the act itself" upon which the
Banner has relied with so much confidence as
means of interpreting the statute. 1t is so pal
pabe that Gov. Campbell did not believe that the
Memphis and Charleston Company was restricted
ed solely for its benefit" that it is surprising the
Banner viii persist in stating the facts outside Of
the act itself" 1t cannot be, we said yesterday,
that Gov. CAMPBELL repealed the East Tennessee
and Georgia Company upon the ground that the
proviso to the 10Th section twas intended solely fer
the benefit OF the Memphis and Charleston Com
pany," and yet when that company applied for
bonds of the State issued them bonds-not to pay
for, or because of their purchase of iron and equip
ments, but-to PROCURE" iron rails &c, AND FOR
NO OTHER PURPOSE" "a lawyer and Judge" would
not do this. Taking it. then ssestablished that Gov
CAMPBELL did not construe the proviso as control-
ing the issuance of bonds to the Memphis and
Charleston Company, and concedng him to be
right in this tfolowS that the proviso was insert
ed with special reference to the fact as stated in
DR.. RAMsEYs report, that the East Tennessee
and Georgia Company had purchased iron and
equipments Of value greater than the S350O0O of
bonds issued under the act of 1880
But the Banner, in its article of the 9th instant
goes into history Of the East Tennessee Company
for the purpose of showing that before the passage
of the ats Of 1880 and 1872 the State lad
issued to the company bonds amounting to $780,
000 and to this is added the bonds already issued
and provided to be issued, in order to swell the
amount of State aid to that company to something
more than million Of dollars. Does not the Bun
ms know that this $1,000 ofbonds was issued to
the company to pay for the stock subscribed by
the State in the old Hiwassee company, and under
that policy by which nearly two million. of dollars
Of bonds were issued to our own section of the
State for the construction Of the turnpike roads
now leading into our city? And does not the Bun
aT further know, that notwithstanding the stock
OF the State and that Of the stockholders was re-
duoed by an act passed several years since, the
otAte now has more stock in the East Tennessee
Ano georgia road than the company realized by
'A'0 ol the S5lGo 900 Of bouds-they being per
A' o""'S' aud issued, many of them at a time
"hon ti'y commanded only sirty cents IN The dol
'u'' anu ue S.-'e was then receiving the stock of
the company upon the assuInatiop thar tho hands
were worth their nominal yaIne2 No., 49,. a. (
Banner further know that the I,,.. 7,,-.-y',
Georgia company were constrained +, e.. L..
bonds in the market in order to rais., 80
prosecute this work, and that in corsc,,,,..'' I
the State lien, these these bonds could ha all.
not more than SO per cent and that bv s,.r s.,,.
the State, being large stakeholder in the road
would have sustained loss commensurate with it,
stock7 We PROFOUND these questions to show the
-BarneT thst it can make nothing in this argument
by a resort to such at oapt7Hdum statements
But if there were any thing in the Banners ar
sunent upon the point it strikes fatal blow TO the
conclusion which itpredicates upon the fact out
side Of the act itself The Banners argument is.
that because these five per cent bonds were issued
20 the old Hiwassee Company the Legislature of |
1872 could not have intended to equalize the
East Tennessee and Georgia Company with the