Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1879-03-09

or officer, judicial legislative, executive or
special, unless an appeal is provided for"
But, again, supposing the fraud to be
proved, how and by what tribunal IS the
question to be settled? The Legislature
can repeat any act Of a preceding Legisla-
ture. when vested rights are not involved;
but to declare an act of the Legislature is
an exercise of judicial power pertaining
alone to the courts and one that they have
been slow to call into requisition, when the
validity Of a statute is attacked, upon the
ground of fraud or other improper conduct
on the part of the Legislature, by which the
act was adopted.
In the case of Fletcher VS.. Peak, report
ed in c. Cranel'8 L. S. Rep. 81, the Leg
islature of Georgia had declared void an
act Of the preceding Legislature making
a grant of land to one James Greenleaf
upon the alleged ground Of fraud on the
part of Greenleaf in obtaining the grant,
the land having in the meantime passed
into the hands of Feck, an innocent pur-
chaser. Chief Justice Marshall, in decid-
ing the case and declaring void the act of
the Legislature vacating the grant, says as
to the plea of fraud practi ced by Green
leaf:
That corruption should find its way into
the governments of ours, in fact, republics.
and contaminate the very source of legisla
ton, or that impure motives should con-
tribute to the passage Of law or the form
alton of legislative contract, are circum-
stances deeply to be deplored. How far a
court Of Justice would in any case be com
petent on proceedings instituted by the
State itself to vacate a contract thus formed
and to annul rights acquired under that
contract by third persons having no notice
of the improper means by which it was OBJ
tanned is a question that the court would
approach with much circumspectiOn. II
may well be doubted how far the validity of
law depends upon the motives Of lis
trainers and how far the particular induce
ments operating on members of the Supreme
sovereign power ola State to the formation
of contract by that power are eXaminabIe
in court of justice.
The court then inquiries as to what ex-
tent these corrupt means must be applied
to justify the court in declaring the act
void. The language is, "Must it be direct
corruption, or would interest or due intiu-
ence of any kind be sufficient? Must the viii
ating cause operate on the majority or on
what number of members?' The Legisla-
ture OF Georgia was party to this trans
action, and for a party to pronounce its
own deed invalid, must be considered as a
mere act of powerwhich must find its vindi-
cation in train of reasoning not often
heard in courts of justice. But the real
party, il is said, are the people; and when
their agents are unfaithful, the acts of those
agents cease to be obligatory. 1t is, only
by these agents, and that while within the
powers conferred upon them, their acts
must be considered as the acts Of the PEG
pie. If the agents be corrupt, others may
be chosen, and if their contracts be exam
Unable the common sentiment as well as
common usage of mankind point out a
mode by which this examination may be
made" The language ofthis great Judge
S so applicable and SO instructive that |
make no apologies for quoting it at such
ength.
l have endeavored to show that even if
raud and corruption were proved on the |
part Of the members Of the Legislature, it |
would not invalidate an act passed by such |
| Legislature under which an innocent !
,arty had acquired vested rights. But what,
n point Of fact, is the proof upon this ques-
ion? Upward Of forty witnesses were eX-
lmined by the committee upon this and other |
points, and if they did not tell all they knew, |
t was not because the questions were not |
eading enough to bring it out, and whilst |
yery important lobbying, with the usual ac
Of wining and dining. were |
ully resorted to by interested parties, and |
specially by those acting in the interest OF |
'aiirodds for the purpose Of promoting the |
passage of certain acts intended for their |
benefit, and whilst there is strong presump- |
i've evidence of bribery and corruption, yet, |
aiken in the aggregate, we may charitably |
conclude that the Legislatures that assem-
)led during the carnival of revelry and
referred TO in the report Of the |
were no worse than the |
Eighteen upon whom the tower of Sloan |
ell, sinners above all other men.
There IS indeed no proof, as all will con-
EIDE who read the testimony, that would |
,e sufficient, in a court of justice, to war
ant The conviction of a single member Of |
he Legislature. Three witnesses-JOseph |
\. Cooper, f. Gossett and B. +. Doughty
testify, one Of them as to having been
resent in a room in Nashville during the
ession of the Legislature of l869-70, when
Y. H. Shepherd, Representative from
hawkins County handed NJ. D. Bearden
i've hundren dollar bill, which, from Shep-
erd's language, it appeared he had paid at
he instance of Bearden to a member of
he Legislature in consideration Of his
citing for a certain railroad bill, but the
lember had, on the final passage of the
i'll, voted against it, and Shepherd COM
elled him to refund the money. The
Their two members relate what Bearden
I'D them as to the transaction, but none
f them disclose the name of the member
} whom the five hundred dollars had been
aid.
An attempt is made to prove that two
Their members of the same Legislature
ere bribed-A. S. Tate, of Granger
0unty; and J. NJ. Clemenson, a member
ON the Seventh Senatorial district. But
ne witness in each case, and the proof
ills to show anything criminal on the part
the accused.
An effort is also made to show bribery
4 the part of James A. Mabry, President
the Knoxville & Kentucky railroad. by
FINISHING members of the Legislature
i,h clothing from the establishment of
+. A. Huntington, in Nashville, but
hist there is no reasonable doubt that a {
rye amount Of clothing was furnished by
huntingdon, at Mabry's expense, there is
} member of the Legislature upon whom
e guilt is fastened.
These, believe,are the only cases in which
ecifc acts Of bribery are attempted 10 be
owed but neither in these nor in any I
her case is it shown by direct and positive i