Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1854-01-11
WEDNESDAY MORNING, JAN. IL, 1854.
THE ISSUANCE BY THE GOVERNOR OF STATE
BONDS TO THEEAST TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA
RAIIRQAn C0MpANY


The Banner, of this city, very unwisely as will
appear in the sequel compes US to notice its crit
cisms upon Gov JOHNSON and incidentally Attorney
General SWAN. We have, since noticing this sub
ject some days since, made ourselves thoroughly
familiar with it by an examination ofthe documents
and inquiries in the proper quarter and state
ments of facts the Banner may rely on.
In the first place, we must put the Banner right
so far as relates to the two important but ectrsc
facts upon which it hinges its lucid Interpretation
of the act of 1852. In its leader of the 4h instant
which we were so modestly censured by the editor
for not republishing it is assumed in the outset as
the basis Of the entire argument, that-in the Ian
guage Of the Banner
ain order that the question in reference to this
matter may be clearly understood, we will state
that at the beginning of the session of the Legsla
ture of 1872, the East Tennessee and Georgia
Railroad was nearly completed from its terminus
in the State of Georgia to or Blairs Ferry on
the Tennessee River in the direction of Knoxville"
1t would be supposed that the Banner would
hardly undertake to censure the Governor or the
Attorney General without reliable knowledge of
the accuracy of the facts upon which the is
predicated But in stating tn At when the Legisla-
ture ofl85l-2 convened 'the East Tennessee and
Georgia Rrailroad was nearly completed from its
terminus in the State of Georgia to or near Blairs
Ferry" the Banner falls into most egregious
The East Tennessee and Georgia road from the
Georgia State line to Blairs Ferry NOW Loudon)
is siUsy fire miles in length. At the time the Leg
isature Of 1S51-2 convened, the cars were running
on the road to the Hwassee river, a distance from
the State line of about tloenty miles, leaving forty
flee miles of the sixty-fve unfinished at the time
that the Banner says the road was "aearly
pleted 10 or near Blair's Ferry" Upon this state
ment of the Banner is hinged the argument that
there was no necessity for any further legislative
aid to that portion of the road notwithstanding the
road, under the act of l949-50, had only received
S35OO00, and by the act of 1852 other roads were
to receive $4,000 per mile, at which rate the East
Tennessee and Georgia road would have been en-
titled to $4,000 for that part of the road between
the Georgia line and Blairs Ferry The error of
the Banner as to this important TACT is a striking
illustration of the folly of undertaking to construe
a statute otherwise than by its letter and intent as
disclosed by its phraseology.
There is also another statement in the Banners
article of the 4th instant to this effect:
GAS fact outside of the Actitself we learn that
the provso to the 10Th section was inserted at the
instance of a member from the We stern Division of
the State, who member of the Committee on
Internal Improvements, and that it was inserted
solely in reference to The Memphis and Charleston
Company, and with no reference whatever to the
East Tennessee and Georgia Company
This statement is repeated in the Banner of
Monday, from which we are to infer that the Ban
roost 7oocI
because some one, ace knoO not aOlo, has informed
the editor Of the Blnner that the proviso to the
18th section was inserted "by member of the
internal Improvement committee, solely for the
benefit Of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad
Company" If we are to infer from this statement
of the BI9ner that statutes are to be construed
not in the mode and by the rules which we under
stand invariably govern Judicial and executive
officers, but as the Chairman or any other mem
Der, Of some committee that may have considered
the bill before its passage shall direct then do we
confess our ncapability of understanding what was
designed by the act Of 1852, as we have not in
quired either of any member OF the internal i'm
provement committee or any other member of the
General Assembly of 1872 as to what he intend
ed or what other members intended should be the
construction Of the statute in the event it became
necessary that the courts or the Executive should
expound it. But if the Banner's mode of con-
structon be correct, then it becomes necessary to
inquire whether Gov. CAMPBELL, "a lawyer and
Judge" adopted such rule of construction with
reference to the act of 1852. 1t will be observed
from the second extract above taken from the
Banner that it is asserted that the proviso to the
18th section was inserted solely in reference to
the Memphis and Charleston Company Now it
would be presumed that, as the Banner is so well
informed not only TO the rules of constituting |
statutes but also to the facts outside Of the act
itself" it would not hazard Gov CAMpBELLs repu- |
tation upon the conclusion that this proviso had |
reference "Soely to the Memphis and Charleston |
Company, unless the editor knew that such was
also Gov. CAMPBELLs opinion. But " as fact |
outside Of the act ITSELF we state that Cor. Camp
bell gaze the act no such Interpretations If he did
IS the Banner insists he should have done, his
course has been most extraordinary For it is a
fact The records Of the Executive Department es-
tablish, that Gov. CAMPBELL nerer did issue one
dollar Of bonds to the Memphis and Charleston Com
pany under the proUiso to the 18th section. but he
va tSSut OOt"N - ttut 'OHl"IHY dfftef me general
provisions Of rhe act aCtAou any reference 10 that
Droviso aeiicl inserted as tie Banner insists.
SOLELY in reference to the Memphis and Charles
on Company!" "Stck a pin there :" Gov.
CAMPBELL acted upon the assumption that the pro-
yiso to the 18th section had no relevancy whatever
o the Memphis and Charleston Company and with
,ut requiring the company to make any state
nent as to the amount of iron, equipments &C.
zc., which had been purchased for their road but
ipon compliance Of the company with the gen.
raj provisions of The law, he issued to them for
he first thirty miles S24O0 of bonds and for the
lext twenty miles 100000, being at the rate of
5000 per mile Now we ask the Banner why it
vas if the proyiso to the 10Th section, under
which Gov JOHNSON has issued bonds to the East $
Tennessee and Georgia Railroad Company "was {
Inserted solely with reference to the Memphis and
charleston Company" that Gov CAMPBELL did not
ssue the bonds OF the State to that company as di
ected by the proviso? Surely Gov. CAMPBELL did
lot take the view OF the subj ct now taken by the
ditor Of the Banner! Certainly he did not take
he position lclea the East Tennessee and Iysor,,
Railroad Company applied for the bonds pnJor
he 18th section that the prOUjSo Destined oJ,