Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1875-06-25
hEMPTEFS APPEAL
FRIDAY, JUNE %, 1875.
rwEEDLEDUn AND TwEEDLEDEE-

=
EDITORS APPEAL - In the DAILY
APPEAL Of Sunday, June 10th, an cd
ilorial, speaking OF the city debt, uses
the following language: 1--WE must
know what bonds were illegally issued,
and declare them void, and maintain
that declaration ia court; and OF those
the lie Zality Of which we admit, We must
know the price at which they were
bought, pay that price, principal and in
tCres', and not one cent more.n As the
APPEAL is the leading State-credit jour
Hsl OF West Tennessee; as that wing Of
the Democratic party finds more fault
with the legislature for its action in re-
gard to the State debt than all its other
riIs combined; in their behalf, as well
as my own, / ask the following ques-
lions: II ii il right for city to declare
illegally-issued bonds void, is it not also
night for a State to do 80? The staunch-
est Stste-cTedit man in the legislature
could not and did not deny that there
WAS illegAlity, and even fraud, 10 the
issuance Of many Of our State bonds,
their only defense being, that by paying
tie interest We had acknowledged them,
aud could not now 60 back on them.
Second-If it is right for city to pay its
bonds, not at their face value, but at
what they cC5s the holder, is it not right
for State to do so?
J. NJ. GALLAWAY.
II Mr.. Galloway read the APPEAL OF
yesterday be must have found an an
swer to his questions. But in case he
has not, we will repeat the substance Of
what We said in answer to the Avalanche.
We regard the State debt finally dis
posed Of and beyond the necessity Of far
Their legislation. Any re-opening Of or
discussion Of it cannot but be attended
byparty divisions and discussions, which
II il the interest Of some to promote and
keep alive, while it is sheerest folly to
expect any good 10 come Of it or look for
any reversal Of the popular verdict,
which the passage Of the funding bill
implied. To discuss it, therefore, is a
vain thing. Like the amendments to
the Federal constitution, 1T is fixed fact. |
In saying this, we must not be regarded
by Mr.. Galloway as Sinking the ques-
tons he puts with a view, as he may
cutely think, to pdE the APPEAL in |
position Of inconsistency. We said yes |
terdsy that ''the funding act provided |
" that bonds illegally and frsudulently |
issued should not be funded, and |
"nearly ali that have been re- |
"cognized are bonds for which |
"the State received a qlad pro |
"qUO;" and we fertilizer ssid that our
position in regard to the city debt was |
that fraudulent bonds should be thrown |
out, and since the United States SUI
preme court says 80, bonds that have |
" been sold at less than their face value |
should be paid for Just what was re-
ceived, and no more" We think this |
is plain, and that there is not even the |
shadow Of inconsistency in our course. |
Bat suppose there was. Suppose we had |
deemed one policy for the State the right |
thing, and another for the city equally /
right? Does Mr.. Galloway suppose for
q moment that the city and State gov
ernmeDts run parallel in everything,
and that each is t.. :'e an exact copy Of
the other? Does he not remember that
the city is the creature OF the State, and
that whilelthe latter is sovereign and
can do as she pleases,with her creditors,
the city is subject TO suits and damages,
and has no relief save such as equity
aud justice, through the courts, may
grant? The city cannot force her creditors
to settlement by an ordinance, whereas
the State can by law. Therefore, hav-
ing been the prey Of financial mismRn-
agement, it behooves her to take adj
vantage of rece-t decisions which open
up an avenue Of escape for her from
the payment of sums the benefit |
of which she has never enjoyed. Until
last June, il we are not mistaken, it was
never deemed possible for a city to
escape payment Of her bonds, principal
and interest, no matter under what cir
cumstances issued, and we believe Mem
phis is among the first cities in the
Union to propose to take advantage Of
what our oppressed Taxpayers think is
fair and just and equitable mode of adj
justment. The people, as we believe,
favor this plan, and the APPEAL, as an
organ Of the people, indorse it. Were
we able 10 SC otherwise and avoid the
difficulties of the courts, the suits and {
cross-suits, the trouble, annoyance and '
expense, we would prefer course attend I
ed with less bad feeling on the part OF I
the innocent holders of our bonds. f
But, Is We have said, Mem. q
phis cannot go on with her pres i
ent load of debt. Our trade, q
our opportunities and future considered, ?
we cannot afford to pay over three hun 4
dred thousand dollars interest alone q
every year, and we must scale the debt (
as the law will allow. We propose to o
submit to the courts and to pay what :
they say we must pay. We cannot e
dc as the State in its y
sovereign capacity could do. The cases q
and condition of the city and the 6
state are not parallel, and bear no a
analogy, save as there Were frsudu- il
ent bonds issued by either. The bonds y
ssUed by the State to the railroads, and ii
sold by them at sixty cents or less, were Il
purchased at similar rates and retired a
20 the State at dollar fer dollar. The d
state LOST nOJhlng either way. But even v
hough she did, it is too late TO talk h
about it now The funding bill was a
inalty Of that matter. 1t has been car II
led out in good faith, and cannot again IT
1e obtruded upon the politics or policies r.
f the State without mischievous pur- .,
pose and mischievOus results to the -,
Democratic party. The State financial n
Dolicy has been approved by the Demo. 60
ratio party, and the APPEAL stands by o.
L The financial policy of Memphis is n,
another thing altogether, and is to be n,
rested OF separately. Like the policy II
# an ordinary corporation, it is to be
iealt with as occasion may require.
HE CALIFOKEIA CLAQUERS. q
In the French thesters they have at
Ig0gyerg Haad-heads who ora givan | m