The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1878-08-15
From the Nashville Banner.
THE STATE DEBT.
B%caslcy's Reply to Gov. POrtcr's
Letter.

gO-CulIcd and presents the finest argument
which can b" made In favor Of the rOnsll-
nationality OltLO,r nets Of the Legislature
By virtue Of which II was rcalrd,
The Go rrnor admit, That Thu question
wa, never brought directly before Tie SUI
prcmc Court, but Insists tlI1' tn" Icsl,la-
lure haI the power to issue the bonds be-
cause II Was nor expressly prohibited by
the Constitution from 30 doing, and relies.
rs an authority. upon the proposition laid
down by Judge Haywood. Upton vs..
Harris, Pecks' Reports, AIS that Tile
sovereign legislative power Of Tennessee,
like the sovereign power Of all other
states Of Whatever character t,.cy may be-.
may do all things, not naturally impOs-
sible, which it deems promollyc OF the
public welfare, except in such Instances
where, by the fundamental law Of the ma
ton, written by the mighty hand OF the
people, it Is forbidden. And IN any IN
stance where Legislative power H. ques-
TONED it bounds over opposition, uIlr.s 4
restriction upon that power IN the partic-
ular instance can be clearly pointed out
IN other words. inasmUcIl ns neither the
Constitution Of the United States or the
state Of Tennessee expressly prohibited
the Legislature from endorsing the bonds
Of railroad, turnpike. manufacturing or
mining companies IN Europe, ASIA or Al
RIGA, and plightiug tile lalll, ana honor OF
the state Tor their redemption, therefore
the Legislature possessed this power ana
thieves in the Legislature could constitu'
|tiOnally combine with thieves out Oi II
and place i burden upon the backs OF the
| people amounting to hundreds of millions
of. dollars. that would cling to them
through all time 10 come like the Old Man
of the Sea 10 the back Of Ninbad the sailor.
This i Judge Hay woods and GOV. Por-
tcr's position, and it IS II rcmarkablr. lacl
that Tie Governor, with his thorough
knowledge Of our supreme Court dcrl-
siOns, has entirely ignored the case oftll"
Bank OF the State vs.. Cooper % 1ergcr
800 which completely dcmoIislcs the
proposition laid down by Judge Haywood.
IN this case, judge Green, who was one
Of the ablcoL men that yer sat upon the
bench, after quoting Judge ilaywo0d'S
proposition, said: "To this proposition.
IN lis full extent, | can not give my assent.
By LhG Constitution all the legislative
power Of the people is vested in the Ten
cral Assembly aud it follows that the Leg
stature may do anything within the l"%IJ-
innate scope OF legislation which Is NOT lor-
hidden iH the Constitution. either In cypress
icrH,s or Jy i~wpiic0ii0N. But certain UNITS
to the exercise OF legislative power nave
boru rrruunizrd from the earliest times.
If is q nrincinIr of fine ENGLISH common
l,w II. TnII u.'tLr law Itself. that a Statute,
oven oI fine omuiuOtcut Ornament OF
Irrli Erjt,iu. l. moi TO have "A retrospect
i've ctI'rrt. Why was il so considered by
fine EnoLsh rourts? They haG no written
Constitution with EXPRESS restrictions up
ON ,hr ,r"islptiyc power. It was so con
.idrrrd Lrrause there are eternal prinCi-
MICS ot iusticc which no government has Il
RIGHT TO disregard. IT does not follow,
brraIIse there may be no re-
strirtiou i'm the Constitution prohibiting Il
uurtirulor acG of the Legislature, that such
net /, therefore constitutional. Some acts,
although not expressly forbidden, may be
aoviu.I tine plain and obvious dictates Of
ransom, The common law. SAYS Lord Coke,
,diudUrth a statute 50 far yUid.'
in tLr same case Judge Peek delivered
,r n~ririnn in which Gr said that The
lrmurr. of lhc Constitution never dreamed
rdmulir~ fine exercise of arbitrary
,ownr In nn7 drnnrrnruL of the govern
NnI JUDGE Kennedy ayrrrcl that
"AU Inn druoumrnts Of uoJcrnmrut are
cnr,Il, hn,'rL Ly the Constitution. 1t Is
tLr Warrant of attorney. or authority, un-
der which all must act. SO far as that lu-
,Lnrily l. exceeded the act Is vuiu. But
This excess should be plain and obvious,
far If J.. ihc lulv oithr courts to reconcile
ihr ~urnvi.tnu. Ola statute with the Con-
sti,ntion. If nv a fair construction it can
Inc d,ur Hul' ~ hen they can not do that
ami rho statute i mainly and clearly re-
n]unnnut tn thr trIir >pirit of the ConslItu-
If l. their duty to maintain the Con-
,ii,uIiou and declare the statute void.n
Thr rrIIc suiri. OF the Constitutions of
lTW and 1871 did not authorize the iSsl-
or endorsement Off bond by the Leg
~laturr for any purpose whatever. On
he contrary. ample provision was made
or raising money 10 dcfrly all necessary ,
of the State government by lax !
tiou. and it is an old maXim of the com :
nan law Tint "thr express mention of one I
Lino implics the exclusion Of another" ,
Rut Governor Porter asserts. with AN air '
rtriumpb, that 10 demand positive law. ,
n fine shane of constitutional or lcglsla- >
i've enactment or judicial decision. Tor the !
Owrr of a SOVEREIGN State to issue its :
onds for any purpose OF government is d
Ike nskinr for "A demonstration of one of !
Inc nv inu9 nf EurIiI. ar fine u~Ositiyc law u
-. u'Linh on inJiyiIuoI ro, contract u $
y NnI'n an l'i!'''"""' 20" '''''",' " e
binding on MN ana MS property Ill I
nc future. i,
lhe power OF Il sovereign ?la'e w ''H"c #
$ bonds VIII npj DC queNtioheu ny any q
ne, but the mistake t''tl tine Governor y
lakcS Is IN assuming tIaI Tue lc@'S''tnrt i
Il sovereign STATE IN "tller WoruS: I'aI
Legislature ana sovereign state are :.
lnNcrtibic terms. We are NOT Sur!TINru' Il
Dw,Yer,t IAt inc Governor litle l'Ii' ms /,
IKE. III appoarS lIat ne MS occn III Lhc /
c%islalnrc Il time or tW"' II hlcNahuer Il
inillton mas calIcu our attcIltloil W we II
ct that the members OF such II booy are +,
to fancy tl,at they are the prooPle' ln't II
loUiS AlN.uid WUch lie salu am n