Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1868-01-15

and the democratic party are now fostering nnoer
he specious demagoguism which would array the |
masses against capitalists"
That ans democrat or ever sympathized with |
that party is an insinuaton as unfounded as 1t Is
glaringly, knowingly unjust. That he desires the
party in power to rebuke me for exposing this |
"bare-faced iniquity" fully believe. That have
evinced Hspecious demagoguism' 1 leave others
to decide by comparing what have said and may
saw. with the utterances and cause Of my accusers
That wish to "array the masses against capital
lists" he must have disbelieved when he penned it
he had no reason to believe it unless he holds 10
the doctrine of Mr. DOughtys bill" that the rich
has right to swindle the poor, and when the poor
object, he calls that arraying the masses against
capitalists" 1 shall now proceed to look to the
legal obligations of the State.
1t is true that the Charter, or Act Of the Legis-
lature incorporating the Bank Of Tennessee pro
vides that the State shall make good and supply
any deficiency that may exist or occur in the sum
therein specifically set apart.
1t is true, the Legislature set apart the common
school fund, internal improvement fund, &C. as
capital stock in the Bank. 1t is true the Legisla-
ture provided that the Issues Of the Bank should
be received for taxes and other dues and liabilities
coming to the State 50 long as the Bank continued
to redeem its notes in gold and silver coin.
1t is true, the State was the exclusive stock
holder in the Bank. It is also true the Supreme
Court has decided that the sum mentioned as being
specifically set apart and make good any defcen-
cy in which the faith and credit Of the State was
pledged was the capital stock of five million
taken by the State, as the sole stakeholder in the
Bank. 1t is equally true, that the Bank was cor
poration separate and distinct from the State Gov
eminent, and that the Bank occupied tho same re-
ation to the State in that respect that any other
corporation occupies toward stockholders therein.
This question has been judicialy determined long
since and it is little remarkable it should now be
| agitated
In the case of the Bank of Tennessee vs.. Dibrell
Sneed $40, Judge Carutbers in delivering the
opinion of the Court, says ut is charged in the
bill that, as the Bank of Tennessee belongs to the
State all debts due to it are debts to the State and
consequently the relation of debtor and creditor
lists between the State and defendant Dibrell; and
for that reason his salary should be appropriated to
the satisfaction of the judgment against him. in ia
vor Of the Bank" Mark you here the question is
distinctly raised that the Bank belongs to the State
that all debts due to it debts due the State
that the liabilities Of persons to tho Bank are iab
tiles to the Stste-that Dbre being indebted to the
Bank, and the State being indebted TO Dibrell, the
identity of the State and the Bank such, the Ii
abilities of the two being reciprocal that the State
has a right to set up the debt due from Dibrell to
the Bank against the debt due from the State to
Dibrell This is precisely the position Of Chancel-
Tor Harrison. He insists that the State and the
Bank are so reciprocally connected that a debt Of
the Bank is a debt of the State and that debt due
from the Bank may be set up sgains. debt due to
the State Judge Caruthers further says an this
view, the defendant Crozer, is enjoiEed, as Comp
troer from issuing his warrant for the salary (the
debt due from the State to DibrelD as it may fall
due" You see here is case where the money is
virtually in the hands Of the State, and it is asked
to apply it to the payment Of debt, then in q
judgm ent, which Dibrel owed the Bank.
But what does the Supreme Court, through Judge
Caruthers say7 Does the Court sustain Mr..
Doughtys bill, as interpreted by the distinguished
Chancellor of Nashville Not a word Of it. Judge
Caruthers continues of it were true that the
Bank of Tennessee and the Treasury of Tennessee
are identical, there would be much pauslbiity and
perhaps more, in the ground taken by complain
ants In that case, the act Of 1885 would authorize
and require the retention of the salary and its APP
plication to the debt due the State" Does not the
Chancellor assume that the Bank of Tennessee and
the Treasury of Tennessee are jdeaticaL7 Most as
suredly, be does; because he proposes to run bis
hand into the Treasury and take the monGy of the
State and people, and pay of the debt contracted by
the Bank, thus making the Treasury meet the liza
bilities of the Bank-holding the Treasury respon-
sible for debt of the Bank-making the Bank Of
Tennessee and the Treasury Of Tennessee identical
How is this position met by the Supreme Court p
! Judge Caruthers, answering for the Court says
"But the assumption upon which the bill in thai
respect is based is unsound and fallacous The fac
that the Bank is the creature and property of the
! State does not make it identical WITH or even at
integral part of, the State sovereignty It is a dis
tinct fiscal corporation, enjoying separate exist
ence with its own chartered rights, obligations anC
powers Then, candid reader, is not the position
of the Chancellor "unsou nd and fallacIous 2"
But, again 1.-THE doctrine that when a State be
comes a common carrier by means of railroad
owned by itself, otherwise, or broker, or in any
other mode enters into the common associations Of
citizens, private companies, corporations tha
it throws off its sovereignty, has become too vel
/ established to allow of argument at this day. II
such cases. the same rules of liability apply and NJ
superior advantages are enjoyed. Debts due to s
State Bank are barred by the statute of limitation
and liable to all the defences as if it were private
corporation So of suits for property, real per
N l. IsF.t
sovereign"
have quoted thus extensively to show that The
Supreme Court has not only decided the very prin
ciples involved in "Nr Doughtys bill, but that j
has declared that the principles relieving the Stat
from any and al liability for the transactions OF
debts of the Bank, have become too well establish
ed to allow of argument at this day 1t says "th
same rules of liability apply" to the Bank of Ten
nessee that apply to "private companies OF corpora
TONS And now 1 ask If any one was ever insan
enough to think Of holding stockholders in rail
road, or bank or any other private corporation,
responsible for the debts or liabilities Of the corpo
q ration Certainly not. Yet Chancellor Harrison
would persuade the people Of Tennessee to plunge
the State into three four or probably seven mil
lion dollars additional debt in order to escape al
imaginary calamity which our highest judicial tri
bunals have invariably decided could never hap
pen 1 think this decision settles the question 0
the liability of the State beyond doubt or cavil
J "Mr. Doughty and Chancellor Harrison TO tb
contrary notwithstanding. But the country i
warned by the Chancellor that when he heard th
. argument Of this question before our Suprem
Court, he was profoundly impressed" and tha
there is great danger that the Supreme Court o
the United States where the case Of Fennan VS.
Nichol is conc BY writ Of errar will decide that h