Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-03-06

and most active opponents ofth system set
forth in the Senate bill presented by Sena-
tor James, upon which all parties favoriDg
funding law have concentrated. The
| citizens of the State can see and judge for
themselves whether they are willing to
submit to his plan or to adopt the funding
measures now before the General Assembly.
We differ with the Senator from
Giles both in regard to the facts
assumed by him in his argument, and cers
tainly widely differ as to the course die
tated by honesty and sound financial policy.
The Senator agrees with the friends of
funding as to the necessity of some acton
to sustain State credit-but he Is evidently
frightened and demoralized at what he
styles 8 proposition to pay interest upon in
terest, or in other words as be styles it
compound interest. s-- ~
While we are upon this point, we in all
sincerity call the attention OF the Senator
to the conditions of the bonds issued by
the State and to the language employed
even upon the face of every coupon attach
ed to it. The faith, credit and honor of
the State is pledged to the payment of the
bond at maturity, but in addition is pledg-
ed to the payment of each coupon not at
the maturity of the bond but at the matuli-
ty of the coupon-a day fixed and certain
named upon the face of the coupon.
Each of these coupons has in itself
all the elements and essentials of a
promissory cote or bond, and we
may well pause and consider the correct
ness of the Senator's assertion, that these
past due coupons do not bear interest. But
without insisting upon this view, which we
may take occasion to refer to in another ar
ticle, it cannot be controVerted that the faith
and promise of the State has been so far
broken that it has failed to pay these cou-
pons at the dates when they were made
payable. Certsinly there is a broad dis
tinction between the case of bond of
State or corporation having coupons at
tached payable at stated intervals, and the
case of note or bond of an individual over
due. In the former the interest is due up
on contract, in the latter it is damages for a
breach of contract or promise. Are we not
in equity and good conscience liable to our
creditors upon both of these grounds. We
say in equity and good conscience, for we
feel assured that the Senator would not rest
his case upon any other ground; certainly
not upon the disgraceful and humiliatiDg
plea that as State Tennessee cannot be
sled in her own courts, and that
therefore, we may, as to our
past due debt, make and dictate
such terms to our creditors as we choose.
But even if the enemies of funding should
SO far forget the honor of their State as to
place themselves behind this base subter-
fuge, still it cannot avail, for Tennessee in
effect may be sued, and in courts not her
own, and her tax collectors may be stop
ped in their duties by tender of these past
due obligations, and thus force the State to
respond where she has neither legal nor
moral status. Whether these coupons bear
interest or Tot, whether they should be
made receivable for taxes or not, we say
and say it with emphasis, that we owe tito
ourselves to make prompt amends for the
broken promises made TO our creditors, in
stead of asking them to wait for ten long
years the process of retiring our past due
indebtedness. We cannot pay the whole;
already for four years the indebtedness has
been delayed, and it is not extraVagant nor
reckless legislation to provide for interest
upon it until We can pay it. 1t is only JUS
tice, and tdrdy justice.
There is one other question which the
Senator has failed to consider in debating
this question, and that is: are we acting
fairly and justly with cur creditors while
we protect our people? Would the Senator
put aside this question in the management
of his private affairs? Certainly not, and
neither can we as a State refuse to consider
it, and consider it now. Indeed there is a
higher obligation upon the State than upon
an individual, as the honor Of the whole is
to be more cherished than the promptness
of one.
The Senator in bis argument has misun-
derstood the reports of the financial Off
GERS of the State, and hence in many
points has argued from incorrect and vision
airy premises. We take it that the Comp !
treller and Governor are correct in estimat-
ing the actual amount of State debt to be |
provided for at S21 100000, and that their |
calculations, based upon the sales of delin-
quent railroads and the solvency of others |
that have not yet retired their debt, will |
prove correct. The Senator has Gin the
hurry of other matters pressing upon
him) not had the opportunity or
means Of arriving at more correct |
conclusions than those reported by these
officials. To enter upon the field of specu-
lation in relation to the amount of our State
debt may serve purpose, but it can scarce
ly commend its results for accuracy in op.
pOolClOh w thO pOl1 VI tuo uuduClN agent
Of the State.
The insinuation of incorrectness made
by the Senator touching the reports of
Comptroller Pennebaker, while perhaps
necessary for his argument, will recoil upon
its author. The Senator shows in the course
of bis argument and calculations and esti-
mates that he has failed to note many
things entered upon the "Book of accounts"
kept by the State officials, and which are
necessary to a proper statement of State
Let it be assumed as stated
by him, that the State debt in July, 1869,
was S40,000,0 00-does il follow that with
the accumulations of interest since that
time the amount overdue would be &c.
100000. Does not every well informed
man know that the railroad COM
panies in paying in their bonds
have along with the bonds paid in the past