Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1879-12-20
County Ronds.

county EhOnAa.
EDITORS CHRONICLE: AS the
question of subscribing stock in new
railroad enterprises is now being /
it seems to me an appro-
pirate time to gather all the facts |
we can, and to present them to the
public for their consideration before
they are called upon to give an ex-
preston of their wishes in the mat
Ter.
Before we take action in the mat
ter let US look at our past experience
in voting stock to public enterprises.
In 1857 or 1858 the county of
Montgomery and tbs city of Ciarks-
vile, by vote of their taxpayers,
subscribed stock in the NJ. G. d L.
r.. r. Co., the county taking $780,
900 and the city 100000. In order
to pay off this subscription each
issued its bonds bearing six per
cent, payable semi-annually, and
to run thirty years, when the prinei-
pal was to become due. These
bonds were sold upon the market
and realized only seventy or sew
enty-five cents on the dollar; so
that if the face OF the bond bore six
per cent, the amount actually re-
ceived for them would bear eight
per cent.
In order to meet the interest as it
fell due on these bonds, taxes were
levied and collected. l find that
/ the amount of taxes levied for this
purpose by the county since 1858
amounts to 1899, 936.48, and, in addi-
ton to this, the Clerk of the County
/ Court collects "a privilege tax which
amounts to some $1,000 or $4,000
per annum, the whole of which is
applied to the payment of this rail-
road debt. This privilege tax for
the last fifteen years amounts to
about $4,000 or $4,000, which,
added to the tax on property above,
and we have nearly $500, 900 that
has already been levied to pay off
this railroad debt of $250,O00. 1
have endeavOred to find out what
part of this bonded Indebtedness is
still outstanding and unpaid, but
my efforts in this direction have not
been altogether satisfactory. / have
examined the records of our County
Court, but they throw very little
light on the question; but find
from a report OF the Finance Com
mittee of the County Court (Which
report has not been spread on the
minutes, however), made to the
October term, 1879, that theamount
still outstanding was 1860, leav-
ing the debt as it stands now only
S4,34O less than when it was first
created.
The bonded Indebtedness of the
city is in no better condition. Let
us now look at the matter as Il bust
ness proposition, In the first place,
we discounted our paper twenty-five
per cent, so that for every dollar in
bonds we received only seventy-five
cents in value; secondly, we pay
interest at the rate of six per cent.
on the face of the debt, which is
equal to eight per cent. on the
amOnnt realized; then we pay the
Tax Collector six per cent. TO collect
the taxes, and the financial agent OF
the county three per cent. for pay
ing it out. Now can anyone tell
how much it will cost us before we
get through paying off this indebt-
edness, or how long it will take to
pay it off to keep on as we have
done in the past?
The bonds will be maturing in
about five years longer, and what
shall we do then? Shall we fund
them, as was suggested by the Leaf
in its issue of December 70? If we
do, that will add at least fifteen OF
twenty per cent. TO the amount OF
the Indebtedness. In other words,
a holder of bond that is due will
not surrender ii and take one paya-
BILE twenty or thirty years i'm future
of equal amount, but will demand
difference of at least fifteen per
cent.
[ am a strong advocate of rail-
roads and almost all other public
enterprises, but our past experience
teaches me that issuing bonds ia
mature at a remote future time is
not a judicious measure, and with
the lights now before me l should
most earnestly oppose another ex-
pertinent of the kind.
II. c. MERRITT,
| Wegladly give place to the above
communication of Mr.. Merritt,
though the bond question does not
affect the railroad proposition now
before us, as it is not the purpose OF
the committee to propose the issu-
anee of bonds in aid of the enter
y,riSa In INV caSa II 10 yUaII tbot