Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1877-08-04
The stnte neht.

A pretty general discussion of this
much-vexed question has been had
throughout the State, but Judging
from the diversity of views expressed
and the contradictory statements put
forth it is in about as mixed c0ndl-
ton as at the outset. A number OF
county meetings have resolved
on the idea that the bondholders
had offered certain compromises,
others on the hypothesis that the
State was about bankrupt and una
BILE to pay anything, while few 9TH
ers have looked at the State as De
ing the only contracting party, and
hence holding the right to settle at
whatever amount it pleased. we
have been a silent but interested OBJ
server of this discussion, hoping to
gather from it something whereby
we could enlighten our readers or aid
in getting the question hOnOrably dis
posed of, until we now feel inclined
to speak.
There are several points which are
vital in the matter and should have
been disposed of in the beginning of
the controversy. If, as the Memphis
Avalanche asserts, there is absolute
" no proposition looking to the
abatement of the debt from the bond
holders, this shonld have been
authoritatively stated lOngsince, and
much of time and words would have
been saved. Again, there seems to
be no knowledge concerning the
States ability to pay the debt. tits
claimed by many that the State is
able to pay the entire debt. If this
can be done without oppression or
burdensOme taxation, then we I'M
dertake tOsay that the people of Ten
nessee will consent to nothing but
its complete liquidation. If the
State cannot pay without infiicting a
hardship ON the masses, there Is no
principle of governmental ethics or
law which would require such inn
position. The greatest good to the
greatest number, is the law OF repub-
lican government, and no matter
what might be the condition of the
bOndhOlders, the State should have
this end in view in settling the ques-
ton. On the other hand, to assume
that the State cannot pay without a
fairand full Investigation of her abil-
ity to do so, and on that assumption
decide the matter, is nothing more
or less than fraud, and of the gray
est character. 1t is equally as Grim
inal to say that the State will COM
promise by paying so much, with
out giving the bOndholders an equi-
table share of their claims, or rather
without considering their claims at
all, as many propose. These stand
in the light of innocent purchasers
of our bonds, and no matter what
equities might exist between the
State and her citizens in this ques-
ton, as between the people and the
creditors of the State no such equi-
ties can be claimed.
The bonds were put upon the mar
ket by the duly accredited agents OF
the State, and consequently of the
people themselves, and those who
purchased them had right to be-
lieve that the people would pay
them-nO matter at what pri 8 they
were obtained. If there be equi.
ties, they hOldas strong for asagainst
the bOndhOlderS, and this is the on.
~ honest way to look at the queS
ton. When the foolish idea is eX
pIOded that there is but one side O
the queStsOn, i. e., that of the State
and that the honor of our people is
Mt stake in this matter, we can get {
fair settlement, and not until then
We are for paying the debt if We
can; if not able, then to pay n!
much as possible, and that only aft
er full showing to our creditors
iShel6yCiUe Gazette.