Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1870-06-08
THE DEMOCRACY AND REPUTATION.

Ill SeSSlOn, through senator cooper, It's
Chairman, leaves no room for doubt as to
the objects of the party now dominant in
Tennessee. The report is not less remark
able for the novel legal questions present.
ed than for the indifference and apparent
reclSlessness manifested for the honor and
character of the Commonwealth. Ourspe-
cial dispatch, published on Wednesday
morning, as to the character of the resolu-
ton virtually inaugurating reputation,
was not too sweeping or comprehensive in
its reach. The bill now under considera-
ton is, in effect, a bill for reputation
0rorided the Courts do not 1oreuem ii. In
view of the law which prevents the State
from being sued, this assurance of justice
to the bondholder is u solemn mockery. 1t
is taunt and jeer, flung at innocent men
first robbed of their rights by a body of law
makers Supposed to represent, to some ex-
tent, at least the honor, intelligence and
integrity of the people. But what, in eff
feet, is this proposition of our enlighten-
ed (?) General Assembly? What is the
reasoning upon which we are to base our
defence for the shameful, infamous crime
about to be forced upon the people of Ten
nessee? The bonds, say the Committee,
were issued irregularly, illegally and frau
dulently, and sold contrary to the provis-
ions of law. Suppose, for the sake of the
argument, that all these facts are admitted,
How do they effect the present holders of
bonds who purchased them before MATURE
! ty, and in due course of trade? There is,
certainly wide difference in law and
morals, between bond signed, sealed and
issued by the proper officers of the State
having authority to issue them, even when
III contravention of law, and one forged or
counterfeited. In the latter case the payor
| is, of course abscivcd from all obligations,
moral or equitable. But how is it in the
former case? The bond is negotiable, title
is passed by delivery. 1t is upon its face
valid, legal binding promise to pay, and
when its issuance is confided to the Gov
ernor upon certain conditions his acts are
ministerial and binding upon the State.
They become res judicotd and though il
legally performed, cannot effect parties
purchasing bona fide and without notice.
The bond bears upon its face the genu-
inc signature of the Governor, and is inn
pressed with the genuine Great Seal of the
State. 1t is payable twenty or thirty years
from date, but contains upon its face no re-
strictions to govern its sale, or its issuance.
Is it incumbent upon remote purchasers,
without notice of irregularities, to look back
of the signatures and seal or conditions
upon its face? But, says the learned COM
mittee the bonds to the Tennessee and Pa
cific Railroad were issued by the Governor
in violation of law. Suppose they were,
how does that effect third parties who had
no notice of the conditions under which
they were to be issued, Or who were not re-
quired by law to look behind the action of
the Governor, and examine the conditions
upon which he aCds to oct' Because the
State has officers who either through igno-
rance of law, or fraud, exceed the authori-
ty invested in them, are innocent parties
dealing in good faith in the securities of the
State, to suffer? or are they to be cavalierly
told, after first being defrauded of their
bonds, that they have their remedy?
But, say the Committee, the bonds have
been sold below par, in violation of the
laws under which they were issued. But
every informed man knows that there has
| lOt Deen leIneSSee DOIlu sou IOT par since
1861. The General Assembly, representing
the sovereignty of the State and enacting
the laws governing the issuance and sale
of the bonds, has been fully cognizant of
this fact. 1t has, nevertheless, continued
| through series of years to issue and de-
liver them to railroad officers, although it
knew that the bonds were deprecated and
would of necessity be sold in direct viola
ton of the law.
Every man in the State knew of the
manner in which the bonds were sold.
The officers of the State knew it, and the
General Assembly knew it. The General
Assembly now in session knew it, and
has been cognizant of it for many months.
| Under these facts is not the State now
estopped from setting up such defense?
| Ifa private corporation should issue notes
to be sold upon certain terms, but which
terms were violated, the corporation would !
be protected i'm law if, as soon as infonna-
ton was given to it of such violation,
prompt measures were taken to enforce its
remedy. But it, after full knowledge of all
the facts, ii still continued to issue its notes
and even encourage the violation of the