The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1879-07-09

states, under the 25th section OF thu
Judiciary Act of 1889, the Court said:
$50 far, therefore, as the property oi
!. this bank has become vested in tie State
or gone to its use, il is so vested and
used charged with trust in favor ol
this complainant Ia creditor of the bank
as an unpaid creditor, unless there is
something in the character of the par
ties, or the consideration upon which,
or the operation of the laws by force OF
which 1t has been transferred, taking the
ase out of the principle above laid
down."
And again the Court says "Indeed
it has not been attempted to maintain
that such law, operating on the pro
perty of mere private corporation,
whose charter the Legislature could not
repeal, would be valid. But it is argued,
this is different case; that the Legisla-
ture has power to destroy this corpora
ton, and therefore its contracts are ne
longer in existence, and cannot be en-
forced against the property of the cor.
poration, which, upon the repeal of the
charter, reVerts to the grantors of its
lands and escheats, so far as it is person
ally, to the State; and that if it be in the
power of the State thus to destroy the
remedies of creditors by repeating the
charter, their rights must be considered
to be entirely subject to the will of the
State, and no law can impair the obligs-
Ions OF their contracts, because subjec-
ton to ANY law which may be passed
hal 70 ho -
contracts. Or to express the same ideas
ia different words, that the State created
and can destroy the corporation and all
its contracts, and, as it can thus destroy
them by repeating the charter, it can
modify, obstruct and abridge the rights
of creditors and the obligations of their
contracts, without repeating their char
ter. .... ...r a
Neither these premises nor the COM
Clusions deduced from them can be ad. |
mitted." .......... ..-.... ......
This case not only decided that this |
was q trust fund in the hands of the /
State, and that the suit commenced in
the State court could be maintained, but /
it decides that a law which deprives
creditors Of a large corporation of all
legal remedy against its property, i'm
pairs the obligation of its contract and
is invalid.
So the question will arise, whether
the act of1S65, repeating the law author
izing the State to be sued, in force when
the bonds were issued, impairs the obli-
CATION of contract, and this is most
serious question.
The view which have here taken of
the demands which will be made and
by the present Supreme Court
Of the United States, is greatly strength
ened by another doctrine now well es-
and that is, if the State EN-.
Oarks in any kind of business or makes |
contracts, as to these, it is to be treated
Is having voluntarily put itself on a lev
4 with common people and is to be
.reated as they are. Il
The Supreme Court of the United |
States, in the case of Murray VS. Charles
on, decided in 1877, and reported in
he 9th volume of Otto, held that
States and cities when they borrow
money and contract to repay it with in t
crest, are not acting as soYereignties- a
hey come down to the level of ordinary !;
Their contracts have the .,
anne meaning as that of similar con-
racts between private persons" And q
'ur own Supreme Court, in the case of s
he Bank of Tennessee VS.. DIbrell, 8 t
ineed, 39., have said: q
1.-THE doctrine that when a State be- T
omes common carrier, by means of
ailrOads owned by itself, or otherwise, 8
n bankers, or in any other mode enters o
ntO the common avOcatiOn of citizens
,r private companies, or corporations. Q
hat it throws off its sovereignty, has f
'ecOme to well established to allow of
rgument at this day. In such cases
he same rules of liability apply and on O
uperior advantages are enjoyed"
have taken pains to produce these
authorities that you might Judge for 7
ourselves whether the courts will not
re likely to compel the State to perform G
Is contract You may say they will :
ay nothing, the Supreme Court of the q
United States will make us pay it all un- =,
ess the step is to great for most pro- :
ressive court to take.
Capitalists generally prefer a compro- "
lise of almost any kind to litigation, q
nd this compromise, if voted, will be .
ccepted by nearly, if not quite, al the =
But driven to desperation, the courts =
ill be invoked and the men now reck- a.
,ssly leading the people will have no A
over to save them. n
What is the attitude of the low tax
len who reject this proposition? Most !,
their representatives who opposed the "
le bill in the Legislature Indeed, they u
pposed it because the bondholders were 81
be consulted; but now the point is d
ley have not been consulted. ia
This question ought to have nothing T.
} do with this vote of the people. The !
legislature has submitted the question
} the people. They are now deciding a
'r themselves, not the bondholders, and v
leir rejection of the proposition is to be m
ken as their decision to pay nothing. III
is notice that we mean to pay moth. 81
lg-it is the utter and final rejection of
4 obligation entered into with all the :"
IDENTITIES of legislation and high exc. II
ltive approval aud sent to the world cl
nder the great seal of the State, com II
lifting the whole people to a promise %
lat the bearer is entitled to the sum
amed. We can afford to compromise :.
lis debt, this is honorable, but we can u
ot afford to deny the obligation, nor to al
lead the shortcomings of our own ia
gents and high public servants who a.
Iade the debt. THIS is plea of our