Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1873-05-04

about which certain members of the
council have said a great deal. They
seem to have discovered the fact that
the mayor was being prosecuted by his
personal enemy, and some Of them have
avowed an intention to shield him
whether guilty or not, because of this
thing. So it is proper ] refer to it in a
frank manner. | am Mr.. Johnson's
personal enemy. ! do have a personal
opinion of him, founded upon facts in
my own observation, which first induced
me to believe him equally dishonest TO
the people as an officer. The man dis
honest in the relations of private life
will carry the same traits into Office.
The official robes are poor morality
| they have never yet Fegenerated rascal.
| And il is TO the hostile vigilance of
enemies the people must look for the
detection of official fraud and corrup-
ton. A mans friends would never ex-
pose his crime; the natural instinct of
| human nature is to pursue your enemies
and shield your friends; and this is the
first time q criminal has attempted to
set up as defense that he was not prose-
| cuted by his friends. The fact of specu-
lation having been admitted, we have
attempted to discuss the two questions
first, whether this particular transaction
was within the spirit of the ordinance,
and second, as to whether hostile per-
sonal opinions can be used to shield
official corruption? 1t yet remains to
meet the accused upon his own defense,
and to show the Injurious effect of this
speculation upon the city's prosperity
and credit.
1t is generally understood that Mr..
johnson claims to have benefited the
city's credit by these transactions, be-
cause the intent was to increase the
value of its securities. 1t is hardly pos
sible to treat such a defense with the
gravity the occasion demands. 1t is so
much like the pious thief who robbed
his victims, lest their money should
lead them into temptation. 1t utterly
eschews the fact of the crime which was
committed in speclGtdting in such secu-
rites. The speculation is the crime,
| whether it be "fOr better or worse" 1t
is the tampering with the secrets of his
Office, and exposing the city finances to
the chances of his private interest,
which is criminal. All thieves would
be willing to return their spoils, with all
! profits, after detection. In this case,
Mr.. johnson does not even propose to
pay back the ten thousand dollars, but
would have the city to add a medal
thereto as a reward of his virtu-
Gus " appreciation of city sscuri-
ties! But, waving this for the
moments the question is, was this
transaction a benefit to the city :?
Mr.. johnson was elected mayor in 1870.
Early in that year he went into the
speculation with Greenlaw and Earring
| ton, and little later into the one with
TObey. They will both support the same
argu nent. They finished buying the
| bonds in November, 1870. In January,
! 1871, the loan was effected with the
Union and Planters bank, by which
they were to pay tie January, 1871, cOu-
| pOns. The city paid ten per cent. inter-
est on the loan, to take up the coupons,
which would have drawn but six per
cent, if left unpaid. The city, there
fore, lost four per cent. on the amount of
January, 1871, coupons the city was un-
| able to pay when due. And l am sup
posing the past due coupons to draw le
gal interest from maturity-a point not
settled in our State.
We can calculate more exactly. The
mayor had in the treasury $500 The
ing a balance of 5000 the city was un-
able to pay at that lime. On this the
holders might have got six per cent. in
tertest, which would be at the rate ofSlSOO
per annum. But the mayor paws ten
per cent. interest for the money to take
them up, " hich is $1,000 per annum. So
the city pays at the rate of $1,000 per an
mum more than it was legally liza
10
like a loss to the city, Mr.
Johnson admits that the city paid
S4S3 of interest on the January, ISL,
loan, most of which was a clear loss,
i not being liable for it.
The same reasoning applies to the loan
to pay the July, 1871, coupons. Only in
that case the interest on a larger sum
for longer time would be enormous.
In June, 1871, he procured an ordi-
nance authorizing him to make such
loans for the purpose ofsaving the city's
credit; but with all due respect for the
council, l would say that it is we'll
known they at that time entirely sur
rendered such questions to the mayors
honesty and judgment, and he is re-
sponsible really for the passage of the
ordinance.
But now to explain why the mayor
borrowed money at ten per cent. inter
est to pay a debt bearing only six per
cent. interest, let us remember the fact
that Mr.. Johnson 1OGs at that UeTy time
virtuously endeavoring to appreciate
the value of city securities on his indi-
vidual account, and the whole thing
seems to assume an Ineligible shape.
1t is something palmer than milepost.
The city pays per cent.-$I200 per
annum-S4S3 in cash more than it
should pay, in order to keep up her cred
it, while Mr.. johnson chooses to specu-
late in city bonds!
Again, if this was a regular transac-
ton, why have the coupons not been
paid regularly since? Is it not as easy
now as then to borrow at ten
per cent? Has he accom-
plished any other brilliant finan-
ciering to pay other coupons? Or has
he "unloadedn the heavy $500, 900
weight he was carrying in 1870, and
ceased his energetic-and reliable-ef-
forts to appreciate the price of city Sc
curities?n The recent fluctuations in the
market-the sudden changes of policy
at the mayors office, are perhaps worth
less indications-to a blind man-but
there will intrUde some doubts
as to whether the same causes have
not produced similar effects; and as to
whether the spirit of ''honest John
Johnson" does not now Tavage as rug
ged bear the same pastures he had
grazed in as a sanity bull. At present
it is only the cases of the two specuIa-
tions-One with Greenlaw and Earring
ton, and the other with Tobey-that we
are investigating, but in estimating the
influence these facts would have upon
the trade of this city we do right to in
quire into all appearances tending to
show a repetition of similar offenses.
Again, Johnson claims there was no
specific agreement between Messrs.
Greenlaw and Harrington and himself,
or with Mr.. TObey, by which he was to
aid them in his office.
Then what 1VoS he to furnish-what
did he furnish? These gentlemen are
well known bankers and keen men of
business. Would they be likely to giUe
Mr.. johnson or any body else share in
profitable speculation without ana con-
sideration? Were they To advance all
the capital required in these specula-
tions, amounting in one to over
$4,000, out of pure loving
kindness for Mr.. johnson relying O7llg
upon the honest mans promise to bear
his share of loss should any occur. II is
not necessary that his agreement to
prostitute his office should be specific.
1t is tribute to virtue that propositions
to commit crime are rarely, if ever, in
plain language. The thief is to "bor-
row" of his prey; the assassin to 'tdis-
euss' with his victim; the public Off
cer-''to speculate"
Mr. johnson agreed to speculate with
these gentlemen in securities of the city,
whose payment he could control. They