Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1879-03-29

N the bonds of the State in pursuan
Ot Of this contract, wien certain thin
1T We're done. Now, who was to d
n scrmine when these things we
4 done ? Who could decide this ma
q ter but the Governor ? The powt
q was expressly conferred upon hi
It then to issue the bonds when /
5 should be satisfied that certain cos
/ ditiOns were complied with, and Ii
= did so decide and delivered tn
! bonds. Now what is the law ofth
e case under this state of facts ?
: have referred in the minority rt
e port to the summing up by Judg
r Dillon of the decisions of the 81
D prelne Court on this point. Let U
r glance for q moment at some 4
t these cases of q later date than tn
one in 10 Wall, Town of COlOma vs
Eaves, Town ofVenice VS.. Murdock
! 4 Otto.
These cases, / am authorized t,
say, have been recognized as law il
the recent case of Carrigan Va. May
or and Aldermen Of Morristown
: decided by our Supreme Court a
, its last Knoxville term, the opinion
of the Court being delivered BY
J Judge Cooper.
But as l have remarked in the mi
nority report, the act of Feb. IL,
1902, carries upon its face a refuta.
tiOn of the idea that II was ever ex.
pected that the purchasers of these
bonds should be bound at their per-
il to inquire whether these several
conditions had been complied with.
Referring tO the railroad bonds,
he said it cannot be contended for
"A moment that the Governor had
the power, or that he undertook to
contract with these railroads. The
Legislature made the contract and
ordered the bonds to be Issued, spec
flying the amount to each railroad,
and the provisions to be complied
with, and the Executive officer was
simply ministerial agent, possess
ing only the power necessarily de-
vOlving upon him to determine
when these facts had been complied
with, and then. not as Il matter OF
contract, not in the exercise of any
power inherent in himself, but sim
ply rs an agent to execute the con-
tract made by the Legislature.
say that is a position which is un-
asSailabie. Tie ingenuity of logic
cannot get around it.
Just to show how precisely that
case runs with this, 4 will say tlat
at that time il was the great and alb
sorbing question Of the day. The
Legislatures were not responsible,
but the people. The object was 10
a a Il
and to get it at once, and il was
well known that ii could not be
raised in this State; everybody
knew you would have to invite
foreign capital. Is it not manifest
that the Legislature would have
stultified itself if, when it had exer-
rI~ei the power to issue bonds of
the State for the purposes mentioned,
attached conditions to their sale
which would have absolutely de-
strOyed IneIr market valueY Is not
that argument irresistible? Do you
suppose IA set of men, competent to
pass law providing for the issu-
ance of bonds which would have to
be sold in the markets of the world,
would have placed conditions upon
them rendering them unsaleable?
He read them from section IS, act
1912. That section comes like a
breeze that sweeps the valley and
lifts the fog. 1t shows the Legisla-
ture did not intend to entrap and |
delude the foreign holder into the |
purchase of these bonds.
In all the wide range Of discussion |
in the entire speech of my friend |
from Sumner, where Is the single. |
solitary bond upon which he has |
been able to put his finger and say |
this bond was fraudulently Issued I? |
This charge is sweeping. No man |
can tell how far il reaches. In all /
these S22,O00,000 of bonds, surely
some one, two or three might be
which were issued either \
through ignorance or fraud. The /
Senator from Sumner stated that |
some railroad had obtained $50, 900 |
per mile. ! am authorized TO state
that he was misled by the party |
who gave him the information.
They also state that i'm lS69-70 we !
were threatened to be throgn back
under the heel of the Federal Gov
that we were under du-
ress. The facts of thecase are these:
We elected Gov. John @. Brown,
and they raised the cry in Washing
ton that the rebels were in power
in Tennessee, and the President was
about to put Brown out, but found
if he did it would only retain Sem
ter, which would be cloves labor
lost" and he didn't do it.
The Senators have referred to
Georgia and Alabama as justiica-
ton of scaling bonds. In Georgia,
mrst palpable frauds were commit
ted in 1863, and in 1871 over 81, ,OOO,-
900 of these bonds were, In the
opinion of the Legislature, fraudu-
lent, and, as soon as they got their
hands upon them, they repudiated
them. In Alabama, without walt
ing for these fraudulent bonds to
obtain wide circulation they de-
nOunced them as fraudulent. Why
did not you, in 1872 and 1874, do
likewise
AS to the Judiciary report sub
mitted by Hou. Ed. Cooper in the
Legislature Of 1870, he referred to
the record of Mr.. Cooper in the
Journals of that session, and also to
4 bill introduced by Mr.. Cooper and
indicating his sentiments on
the subject Of the questioned bonds. |
If you have rights, go to the courts,
and there every honest man will
stand by you, and il they declare
the bonds illegal, your sky is clear
and your escutcheon untarnished.
AS to the endorsement by Johnson
Of the bonds Of the Memphis q Lit
tie Rock railroad, and repudiated
by Governors Brown and Porter,
Gov. JOhnson's signature was on
these bonds only as endorser. The
State was only secondarily liable.
The terms on which the bonds had
been issued had not been complied
with, and therefore were void. Re
rerring to the "vicious policy" con-
lemned by the majority report,
which had wound its tolls all about
The people, he maintained that as
a question of law, what the people
10 through their agents they do
He had been a close
observer Of events in this State for
years, and when not a resident of il,
within fifteen miles OF its borders.
The people have been the prime
movers in all this policy which the
gentleman prOnounces vicious, Way
back In 1884 they Clamofed for