Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-04-09
mORE ABOUr FORFEIT ISSUES.

The NASHVILLE UNION AND AMER
ICAN and other Democratic papers,
writhing under the popular indigna-
ton against the "Torbett Issue"
swindle, are complaining of the Re
publican State administration, because
it did not saddle the people with the
redemption of the old issues. This Is
rich. The notes had gone into the
hands Of the people at their full value;
costing the holders dollar for dollar.
Isham G. Harris and the Rebel Legis-
Iature, consisting IN part Of some Of
these same Democratic editors, ran
off with all the effects that could be
taken away, leaving only the real es-
tate and the uncollectable debts.
There was left to redeem the notes
hardly twenty-five per cent of their
face value. The bank was broken. Its
notes ceased to circulate as money. The
holders, generally compelled to realize
and glad to get what they could, were
fam to sell for thirty and even twenty
cents in the dollar, thus losing from
seventy to eighty cents on every dollar
they had. Now the Democratic editors
insist that they should have been COM
PEELED 20 redeem it at par, besides, thus
making a loss Of one dollar and seven
ty OF eighty cents, say one dollar and
seventy five cents for every dollar IN
circulation.
The Republican Supreme Court of
the State decided that the people were
not liable for the redemption. As the
Democrat man says, 1.-THE spectators
by appcalingsto the Supreme Court Of
the United States, compelled the State
to accept It ultimately, dollar for dol
lar" Will he tell US who these specu-
lators wero and what their politics,
and who was their attorney? This
wise fnancier says the notes could
have been paid for taxes. The object
Of taxes is to meet the expenses Of car
rying on the Government and TO pay
tie interest on the public debt. These
notes could do neither. Paid INTO the
Treasury Of the State they were worth
less. 1t follows that every dollar col
lected In taxes from the people was
dead loss.-KnOSCiLle Chronicle
Curiously enough, the above crush,
ing editorial confirms in every partfcu-
lar the structures. We. haze made OF
Brownlow and his Legislature for re-
sisting the law Of the land, as ulq-
matelyinterpreted By the United States
Suureme Court, and entailing loss to
every one holding old Tennessee sbank
notes, of seventy or eighty cents on
fhe dollar. The Chronicle c6nfesses
that the notes had gone into the hands
of the people at their full value. 1t
tells us also that the notes ceused to
circulate as money at the very epoch
their holders were in most need. Of
monte, wien emerging from the. mis-
fortunes of war they were .'..g6nerally
compelled to realize and glad to- get
what they could, selling for thirty and
even twenty cents in the dollar, thus
losing from seventy to eighty cents on
every dollar they had" But why did
those notes cease to circulate az that
peculiar juncture? How came it that
the poo Ie were "geheraily compelled
p to accept twenty cents son the dollar?
Who "compelle6' this loss Of seventy
or eighty cents on every dollar they
had?"e 1t was the refusal Of the Radi-
cal State government to accept the
notes an payuent for taxes. If they
had bsen available for this purpose,
thoF would never have deprecated 10
one.ffth Of their face value; they would
never have fallen below 80 or IS cents.
They would have continued to circulate
as money till they were an paid in, and
might have continued in circulation till
this day. as some issues Of New York
State banks have done, bysimplypassing
from hand to hand and never going into
bark to get shaved 10 per cent. under
the national bank law.
TIE Chronicles statement Of the case
plainly shows that, first, the people
paid dollar for dollar for the old notes;
secondly, Radical legislation "gener-
ally compelled" sthe people to sell
them for twenty or thirty cents; and
thirdly, the people were ultimately
compelled by the United States Su-
preme Court to redeem them dollar for
dollar after parting with them at twen-
ty cents. Who profted? Did the
State or the people gain anything by
resistance? The State was obliged to
accept them for taxes at last. but by
refusing to do So for a time, the peo-
pie lost over tnree-foIrths Of their
value.
And why did the Radical rulers of
that era refuse to receive them for
taxes? For the very reason given by |
our Knoxville contemporary, that after
being paid into the State Treasury |
they were worthless" The Radicals
wanted something beEer to spend and |