Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1868-12-03
rar rSruscrrox SUIT.
arruments Of Councll.

,ent in the case of some Eve hundred tax %
,svers against the Mayor and City Coun- is
Il of Nashville was opened by A. L. De- he
moss. ESQ in behalf of compliments, who
reviewed at length the allegations in the W
nh and made mastery appeal in de- Ii
reuse of the rights ofthe tax-paying public. p
He quoted literally from high authorities Il
To show that corporations should be held 9
strictly within their chartered limits, 50 r
that the rights of citizens should be pro-
tected. He referred particularly to the de- I
cisiou in the Supreme Court of Michel Us
Navor and Aldermen of Che city Of Nash
Wills. and called attention to the decision ret'
dered by Judge Turley. His structures upon
the investment Of $4,000 in frog-pond
for park, we're very severe. He took the
ground that the Mayor and City Council
were board of trustees acting for the peo-
pie, and it was preposterOus to believe thar
thew had the right to issue checks at WIZ
or violate the law by selling checks az
usurious rate of interest. He referred 10
| The answer Of The defendants, in when
thew attempted to excuse their mlsmanase-
ment by a comparison with the NAV
Brown administration. The gentleman
who composed that administration, he
wished it understood. were not upon trial,
and IL lhey had committed fraud or reck-
lessness in office, they were responsible Tor
their acts, and suit could enter against
| them. He pictured the long train OF evils
horne by the citizens Of Nashville, dis
eussed Sheridan's bond at length, anu
closed with stirring appeal for remedy az
the hands Of the Honorable Chancellor.
Daring his argument, he took occasion to
saw that this was not political lawsuit,
and that be would not argue political
suit. 1872, T..
He was followed by E. A. Otis, Esq,
| who stated that he had brief prepared
which covered the points in the case, which
he proceeded to read, together with an &C.
casional mixture of argument. He also
ouoted.iberally from the books, and called
a attention to the difference of private and
rs municipal corporations. The Corporatio1
Of of Nashville was a government, delegated
q With certain powers ofsovereignty. The city
i of NASHVILLE was branch of the State gov
IT eminent, and her officers not the agents OF
private corporation, but officers of State
u u In referring to the purchase Of the Park
n he said there was no implied power, bu
of were expressly authorized by an act of In
it I,epislature. He insisted that the corpo
- ration had not been made party 10 In
Il. suit because the bill charges individual
and only refers incidentally to the Mayo
and Aldermen and Common Councilmer
, That if ususry could be established thef
was no one to receive it, unless the relstol
claim it by right of discovery. He too
the ground that the Mayor and City CouI
ell were not trustees Of the citizens, an
thought the request for the appointment
Receiver was without parallel.
After Mr.. Otis had concluded, the Cou
ed took a recess uatiI o'clock. Upon II
1e' opening of the Court in the Afternoon
DID, Judge 10. C. Guild, for the con
plainants, commenced his argument. i
said that the checks that had been issue
are floating over the city at discount
H. go to Is cents. Beside the great burdf
- resting upon the people, the corporate
- goes down here and buys that great bul
a frog pond, and issues the bonds OF ID
n corporation to the amount of $40 ,5OO al
icb the party making the purchase, for fear
IN this thing.being ventilated, puts the
~ bonds on the market aud disposes Of theE
8, The answer to the bill says that you
=: m to this date issuing checks for sale. v
H. charge that YOU have indicted yourself
- into Office by fraud. You are
"a qualified. You do not hold re
49, estate. If you own real estate, why dor
- each man of you come along and Prese
your deed, when you purchased it and
~ what page of the book it is registere
-. Each charge in our bill is more or less
:, ysded by the defendants, when forty tho
49, sand people who are thus oppress
- have no voice in the levying Of these tax
- Judge Shakleford asked the speaker t
-. following question: Woule the Cou
,on have the power TO prevent them from CT
"a. lecting the taxes? if SO, what would becor
Cd of the city government
- Judge Guild We want you to appoi
= Receiver to make these collections, vi
~. full power to pay all debts and TO ia
- possession of the Fire Department, Will
~. is now costing the city S6O,OOO, when
can be run for $4,000.
'@ The speaker then read several e1tra'
of the Code in relation to the question u
der discussion. What authority hs
inf. they to assume the power of issuing $50
irst 600 in checks, not to pay the debt, but
he breed upon the market, giving their fav'
rri. ties opportunity to make something wht
the ever they rise. They are also Issuing tn
q to bills Of credit when if it was State,
fer constitution says that you shall not iss
and YOUR bills Of. credit. A Receiver should
an appointed to prevent this great injury
va. the people. Mr.. OTIS Gays that our
,rtv has not been endorsed by the Attorn
mos General. We did not think OF submitti
$ at the subject to the Attorney General.
on are the citizens, the taxpayers. We ha
,ok been made to draw the water, TO hew
an TIMBER, and we have the right to appeal
chit the law. We being REALTORS, the private
rer. liens, the Taxpayers, We stand upon as II
law a ground as il the Attorney had endors
.ry. our bill. We want an Injunction upon tn
obt gentlemen to cease them from further {
on erations. They have shown by the
The sTer that they are abusing the exercise
9th this relation. Take the bill and ansV
mo together and the Honorable Court must
4 n that utter ruin stares this people in
m, face. Justice demands that Recei'
and should be appointed, and we have eVideI
that your Honor will select busin
the man and a responsible man who will Is
tho upon himself the duties Of an honest &
00o. faithful discharge of his high trust VI
bav this case can be finally settled.
,eir 1t only remains for your Honor
ian say whether such a case has been ma
Tx We think we have made the case out a
that we are entitled to+he protection Of