Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1874-01-17

want opinions, We come at once, to the
point in controversy, which is the va
hdity of the contract between the
County Court and Chronicle.
The first question is-did the court
have legal authority to make such a
contract? We answer the question by
reproducing the law, comforting that
right-it is in these words:
AN ACT Extending the Provisions of all
Laws Relative to Revenue Collectors and
TO Collectors of Railroad Taxes.
SECTION l. Be it enacted by the
General Assembly of the State of Ten
nessee, That all laws relating to and
prescribing the duties of Revenue Col
lectors, and comforting upon them any
power and authority in the discharge
of their duties. shall in all respects
apply to the Collectors of Railroad
Taxes in any county in the State.
SEC. 9. Be it further enacted, That
said Collector of Railroad Taxes, shall
report in accordance with Section 612
of the Code, to any term of the Cir
cult Court of his county preceding the
day of sale, that will allow time for
advertising according to law.
SEC. 3. Be it further enacted, That
in counties where there is more than
one Circuit Court, the report provided
for in Section 6l2 of the Code, shall
be made to the First Circuit Court of
said county.
SEC. 4. BE it further enacted, That
at the sale of lands for non payment of
taxas, if no person will bid the amount
of taxes, costs and charges, the said
collector shall bid off the lands in the
name of the county Trustee, for the
use of the several railroads for which
taxes were levied, in which case the
fees shall be paid to the officers out
of any funds belonging to said rail-
roads.
SEC. 5. Be it further enacted, That
this Act take effect from and after its
passage, the public welfare requiring it.
Passed February %, 1873.
w. S. McGAUGHEY,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
A. T. LACEY,
Speaker of the Senate.
Approved February q, 1873.
JOHN c. Brown, Governor.
Can there be any doubt, in the face
of this act, that the Court was fully
empowered to instruct the collector to
advertise and sell the property of de-
linquent railroad tax payers? Then,
the question of authority being so
clearly established, the only remaining
point to be settled is-did the Court
so instruct the collector? In reply,
we give the Courts own order in the
following words:
"On motion, it was ordered by the
Court. that John r. Martin, the Rail-
road Tax Collector, for the years 1861,
90. sc. 90, IS and 60, be and he Is
hereby directed, to advertise and sell
all condemned lands on his lists, which
has heretofore been held up by order
of the County Judge"
Here we have in juxtaposition, the
law comforting upon the Court uncOn-
ditional authority to collect railroad
taxes by the same process pursued in
the collection of State and County
taxes, and the order of the Court, pre-
dicated upon that law, that John X.
Martin proceed to advertise and sell
property of delinquent railroad tax
PAYERS. And since nothing can be
clearer than the right of the Court to
make the contract, and that it did au-
thorize its agent to make it, and that
the Chronicle did fulfill its part of the
contract. it is an evasion OF law and
equity to repudiate the bargain upon
the plea of subsequent illegallty.-
The law does not permit an innocent
partv to suffer when the other party,
with full authority to contract, does
so. whether wrongfully or not. There
are no conditions wanting to make this
contract binding upon the Court, and
if, in all other respects, the proceed
ings were illegal, it would not invali-
date the claims of the Chronicle,
which did the work bargained for, and
is in no wise responsible for the lille
gal act of the Court-eyen if it can be
proven to be illegal.
Inasmuch as the motives of the
Chronicle have been slightly drawn in
question, and is charged with being
afraid to talk aloud, it is but an act of
self-vindication to enquire if there has
been no whistling and face-making. on
the other side. Is it altogether above
board to publish an anonymous report
of a committee of FIVE. Why was IT
spread upon the records without a
signature Was the report unanl-
nous ?-if not how did it stand? 1t
is reported to us that two out of five
considered the county bound for the
contract, and the third, without giving
definite opinion on this point,
thought it ought to be settled without
the expense of a lawsuit. One of the
committee says he knew nothing OF
the report until it was read in Court
that he had been invited TO no confer
ence on the subject. and knew Of no
meeting of the committee except that
held on the morning of the day on
which the Court met, when only three
were present.
We are farther informed that Judge
TYLER consulted an eminent lawyer, in
the city, upon the Obligation of the
2 county to pay the printing fees of tie
Chronicle, and that the said lawyer
gave it as his opinion that the county
is bound, beyond legal escape, to pay
them. If this be so, was that opinion
either orally, or in writing submitted
to the committee. If not, who is
afraid to talk aloud? In this cOnnec-
ton. we will state that we heard it said
aloud, on the street, few days since,
that if the claim was the Leafs in-
stead of the Chronicles no objection
would have been raised to its prompt
payment. The remark is worth moth
ing, except as showing that Pa'pable
Injustice does not always escape pub
lie observation and criticism.