Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-09-14
Ne 60. In iIg isgue Of sundaE. atLemptg %

TUESDAY MORNINGS SEPT. IA, 1855.
The Banner, in It's issue of Sunday attempts to
weaken the force Of the facts which we adduced,
proving that Dr. Burton did execute a bond as com
missioner Of internal improvements, according TO
the provisions Of the act Of 1876, and the sabse-
quent Act on that subject
The Banner starts out with professions Of fairness
and freedom from political prejudice, which are
scarcely sustained by the and temper Of its ar
ticle. Without replying to eur contemporaries in
snustiOn with regard to the dsinterestedness of our
motives, we shall leave our readers to judge of the
disinterestedness Of his own motives disclosed in
the following paragraph:
Governor JOHNSON believes that all Know NOthings
are "Murrel men," and SO believing we say be was
recreantt to that duty which he had sworn to perform
when he either failed to take BURTON's bond, or
having taken it, delivered it back to BURTON Ior
custody.
If disposed to enter into an examination Of NC
tiYes, we should not be left to infer the reasons
which prompted this attack upon Gov. JoHNsoN's
official conduct. Il cannot be shown that Governor
JoHxsox ever expressed the belief attributed to him
in the above paragraph, bu whatever his opinion Of
the Know Eoihing party may. be, or however mu0h
his severest judgment might be jusihea ~ me Ie-
cent conduct Of Know Nothing ofheias' II Iurn
isbes no inst GROUND for assault upon his persona
or ofcisl character Let the Banner meet the iac1s
inch We have addueed fully and fairly and II 1t
can convince the public that Governor JOHN
SOW has been ''recreant to that duty which he had
sworn to perform" let him be condemned,
awithout reference to his political connections "
We do not doubt that a candid examination of the
evidence will aeouit Gov. JOHNSON of all blame in
the matter But the Banner has not yet given atull
statement Of that evidence, and consequently Its
reasoning on the subject is faacous and unreliable
In its summary Of the testimony the fset that Dr
BURTor declared that he had given this bond Is en-
tirslv suppressed. The reader is left to suppose
thai GOV JoHNsoK's "bare recollection" is the only
evidence of the existence OF the bond If that were
the case. we think the evidence would be amply suf
6eient The existence of notes or legal instruments
which have been lost or destroyed, is frequently
established in our courts Of justice on the "bar'
recollection" Of one witness. No man can stat
morethan hisreeOllection Of events which occurred
several years ago. but if the witness isreliabe, hi
recollection is generally thought sufficient to estab
Iish a fact not otherwise improbable. Now there !
nothing whatever in this to weaken the force
Gov. JoHssOE's testimony. He states not only tina
the bond was given but informs the committee ais
where the bond was deposited. Here we have tn
ureumstantial recollection Of the very person who's
recollection must be presumed to be more accurat
than that of any other individual, except the ma
who gave the bend-Dr. BURTON himself If d.
B.. had stated that the bond was not executed, v
should still have been bound to receive Gov JOIN
SONS testimony in preference to that Of BURTOl
whose interest it was to release his securities BIZ
hat fha houd We
given. Now an admission against the interest
the party making it, is always considered the strong
est and most satisfactory evidence. DR.. BURTOE
admission is of that nature and when taken in col
nectiOn with Gov. JOHEsOE's statement makes IL
evidence on that point at once clear, conclusive an
irresistible.
The only facts on which the Banner relit
TO controvert this testimony are those referre
to by the committee first, thatno bond can be fOun'
and second that none is recorded On the books
the Secretary's office.
The fact that tLe bond cannot be found is no CIV
5sDos at all that it never existed when itissO cas-
to account for its disappearance, and when the fa
Is established by the seperate and independent te
timony of two Witnesses that the bond did once ext
In the second point of its testimony the BaHn
falls into one of its characteristic blunders 1t col
tends that the fact that the bond is not registers
as REQUIRED by law is evidence that 1t was not e.
ecuted. Now the Banner errs in asserting that Il
law REQUIRES the bond to be registered, and bell
based on error, its reasoning on the point ia
to the ground. The disappearance Of the bond
the onIv fact left, to combat the evidence Of tV
Witnesses both testifying that the bond was give
We leave q discriminating public to decide wheih
under these circumstances We are not justified
in the conclusion that the bond was executed. II
only other allegation against Gov. JOHSsoH to su
tain the charge that he has proved recreant to
official oath is that the bond was deposited in t
Office Of the Secretary of State. Now the law do
not prescribe where the Commissioners bond shl
be deposited and in the absence Of positive ena'
mept. it is always safest to follow Precedents.
only bond ever executed so far az We are informe
under the act Of 1856, was that Of Mr.. RAMSEY du
ing GOV. NELL S BRowE's term Of service as &c
erpor Of the State, and that bond is ts IN the Of
of the Secrstary Of State. Gov. B. thought this t.
proper place for it, and Gov. JOHNSON merely Il
lowed his example Thisis the Craze error Tor viii
the Banner eensures him so severity. This is T.
act for which Gov. Johnson is charged with bei
ssrecreant to the duties he had sworn to perform
We think the judgment extremely harsh and unju
and believe that the community will sustain o
opinion.