Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-01-23
HOUSE.

HOUSE.
The House was called to order at 10
NJ, Mr.. Speaker Richards in the chair,
and sixty-eight members present.
Rev. Mr.. Huntington offered prayer.
Mr.. Allen sent up a petition from citia
zens of BlOunt county, asking for the re-
peal of an act extending the exemption
lsws. The petition was referred to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr.. Smith entered q motion to recon
slider the vote taken on Senate bill No.
No. 27S.
THE SPECIAL ORDER
was then taken up Mr. Bosom being en-
titled to the floor, in opposition to the
bill to abolish receiverships on Rail-
roads.
The internal Improvement act of 1852
was a great fundamental law, upon
which rested and must continue to rest
the prosperity of the State, and any de-
rangement of that law must have pers
nicious influence. lie considered it I'M
wise to make any change in law which
had been passed seventeen years ago,
and worked for the welfare of the State
ever since; to substitute for what has
stood the test of 80 many years new
and untried law would be dangerous.
Mr. Bosom went on to discuss the pro-
visions of the internal improvement act
passed in 1852, particularly those parts
Of it (which had q bearing upon the guess
ton at issue. 1t would be dealing with
the subject fairly to call those gentlemen
to account for any shortcomings which
have been noticed in their conduct.
He then went over the affairs Of the roads
which Mr. Roach had instaneed as SAM
Piles of the failure Of the law under
which receiverships were established, took
occasion to remark that the affairs of the
Northwestern railroad were conducted
with remarkable success and efficiency
under the receiver and the directors apps
pointed by the Governor.
Mr. Woodcock followed Mr.. Bosom.
Before saying anything in reply to the
arguments advanced by the distinguished
gentleman from Rutherford, he would
announce that he was in favor of the bill
with the contemplated amendments of
Mr. Waters, if the amendments can ever
be reached. He considered that Mr..
Bosom had not made a point in his
whole speech. The only reason he could
advance against the bill was that it
would destroy the symmetry of the gems
eral internal improvement law. Mr.
Bosom opposed the bill on this ground
alone, because he had no other grounds
to oppose it on. 1t made no difference
in the world whether law was theoretir
if it did not work we'll and for the inter-
est OF the people it was the duty of hon.
est legislators to abolish it. The history
of the receiyership system was a history
of loss to the State-that is the great
disadvantage Of the law The difference
of receiverships from the supremacy Of
companies over their own roads, is this
That il the companies do not pay the
interest the State loses but that much,
whereas, under the receivership system
the State has to pay them and host of
officials beside. 1t is to be presumed
that the Governor understood what he
was saying, and that he did not need any
mouth-piece in the House to explain his
words for him:
Some men oppose the illbecause they
think it will reduce the chances of sells
ing the roads that have failed to pay their
interest.
The speaker also gave several instan-
ces of railroads run by receivers for the
interest Of themselves
Mr. Brown made length exhibit OF
facts and figures connected with railroads
in the State, showing that there were
sixty millions of property in railroads
| upon which the State had lien, and
deprecating the wisdom of placing SC
much property back again in the hands
of companies that had proved delinquent
In the course of Mr. Browns speech a
motion to adjourn to p. NJ. prevailed
The House accordingly adjourned
Afternoon Session.
Mr. Brown resumed his speech against
tho passage of the Receivership bill,
arguing at considerable length that
the best interest of the State demanded
its rejection. At the conclusion of hi.
| remarks
| Mr.. COrdelI moved to concur in the re-
port Of the committee who recommended
the rejection of the bill, and called fol
the previous question which was sus-
tanned
The vote on cOncurring was then taker
and resulted as follows, thus defeating
the bill:
Ayes-Allen, Anderson, Bowles
Brown, Blackman, Bloom, Bosom, Chiles
Curry, Cordell, Doughty, Dyer, Griffith
Gilmer, Grayson, Hale, Hamilton of LIN.
coin, Marshall and Giles, Hammer, Hack
er, Inman KerchiVal, Lillard, Medlin
Myers, McFall, McKenley, Morris, Muir
ray, McNair, Mynatt, Moore, Poston
Porter, Prosser, Reeves, ROddy, Single
tary, Sheppard, Sparkman, Stone, Taylor
of Carter, Thornburg of Granger
Thornburg of Jefferson, White of Brad
ley, White of Greene, Welch and vii.
liams--46.
Noes-Brewer, Carter, Cason, Dame
Faulkner, Hodges, Hewatt, Hunt, Jor
dan, johnson, Murray, Mason, Packet
Priesthood, Pitts, Ryder Roach, Smith
Taylor of Perry, Turner, Woodcock
Waters and Wines-24.
A motion to reconsideriwas laid on tn
table, when the House adjourned until i
o clock tomorrow.