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

these bonds on the part of the Legislature
or any officers or agents of the State, from
now disputirg their validity, and that spe
cal precautions to keep the door open il
THIS respect were adopted by using The
phraseology illegally issued " in the act
referring to the payment of the bonds.
Whether the doctrine of estoppel ,
In its technical sense applies TO a sovereign
State, IS question as 20 which the authors
ties differ.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina il
very emphatic that it does not, and for the
strongest case that L have met with on tina
side of the question, / refer to 4th HawK's
Rep, 132.
But the question, as far as we are con
cerned, has, think, been settled the othei
way by the Supreme Court of Tennessee
and TO the decisions of that tribunal We
must yield our assent. In the case of The
State vs.. Jefferson Turnpike Company, re,
porte in 3rd Humphreys, 304, which wa:
a suit instituted by the State under the
act of l8394) against the Jefferson Turn.
pike Company, charging that the subscrip.
ton of the State for one. half of the stock
of the road and the State bonds to the
amount Of $4,000 had been fraudulently
obtained, and praying for cancellation OF
the stock subscriptions and the refunding
of the amount of the bonds, the Commit
teO says: The question first to be consid.
on the part Of the State and the SUISSE
qnnt issuance of the bonds were procured
by misrepresentation on the part on the
private stockholders AMI a mistake OF the
Governor, and we have no doubt they
were. these being the facts, there would
be no doubt that the contract should be re-
sclnded, unless subsequent transactions
have effected the rights of the parties. But
the parties have gone on with this work
n w Il ! cd
May, l84l, a period of nearly three years,
and very large exp mixtures have been
made. Besides the State was
represented in the Board Of Directors (of
the turnpike company and
these facts were within their knowledge
and took place with their concurrence and
sanction.
The question is not as to the power Of
the Governor to make bonds in the name
OF the State, but as to his authority TO de-
liver them. His act in delivering them be-
fore the regulations of the statute werC-.
CO implied vi h, if such were the fact, weree
no doubt, vOidabie, but whether this rem
dered the bonds themselves void in this
hands of innocent holders is a very differ
ent question, and | have shown how this
question was understood by the Legisls-
ture by the provisions of the 18th section
Of the act of Feb IL, 1862
1t is a well settled principle that a void
act can not be made valid by subsequent
but voidable one may, and
any more irregularities in the execution of
q power may be waived These bonds, a
has been shown, were issued through pc
iod Of fOrty-four years. Many consecu~
i've sessions Of the Legislature and four
-een different Governors have been charged
with the protection Of the interest of the
State; the bonds have been passing from
hand to hand, some of them con-
shutting the investment made by
guardians and others acting in tduciary
character; some of them constituting the
endowment fund of our own literary and
charitable institutions, and yet, through all
that long period, no voice of warning has
been heard from those clothed with author
ity as the recognized and sworn represen-
talives of the interests of the State, except
the Investigations of ls69-7O above referred
to but on the contrary, act after act OF
che Legislature has been passed recogni-
zinz, directly and indirectly the validity
of the bond, by funding and receiving
them in payment Of dues to the State, by
appointing directors on behalf of the State
in the railroad companiC' to which these
bonds were issued, IS was the case in the
j tfarsOn turnpike, above cited, and in
every other mode in which the State has
acted in reference to them.
The clause 20 which so much importance
IS attached by the committee in the lnser-
ion of the words Legally issued " into |
several of the acts since Feb. IL, 1852, can |
nave but little legal significance, since no |
me was designated whose duty it was to !
determine this question, and no step taken |
~ the State to have it ascertained in the ,
,Lly Legitimate mode, that is by the decis- |
on of al Impartial judicia tribunal.
The State can not set up the plea OfignOT-
nee, for the prOtracLed and exhaustive in
designations Of 1870, elucidated al the |
material parts bearing on the question; and j
bough the present investigating committee |
AVE, speaking not as to my self, mantle {, d |
marked diligence and zeal in the peIfDrn-
nee of their duties, an ana ysis Of the |
roof they have taken will show that Ii O .
astimOny is a most entirely a repetition of
hat taken in 1863 10 many of the same
witnesses being rC-eXamined, or is at the
most cumulative, no newly discussed ev
enCe of any special significance having
)een brought to light.
/ come now to the last point made by the
committee on behalf of the State, and this
S urged, not as affecting the validity of tie
,On-s for it is not pertinent to that issue
,ut as Illustrative Of tho injury suffered
" the State in Consequence Of her cOnnec-
ion with the internal Improvement enter
rises of the State and especial y in the
or ed sale of the railroads under fore
lOsure Of the statutory mortgage Of the
tate.
AS | understand the history of tiis tran
action, viewed in the light thrown upon il
y the legislation bearing upon the subj ct
nd the official records of the State, The
n G Of tae defaulting railroad wa clearly
n unavoidable J ecessty Receivers, had
cen appointed by Safe authority and
laced IN charge of these roads, and under
heir management as stated in the official
apOrt of Comptroller Penn ebaker for 1873,
ne State by attempting to un the roads
stained II loss averaging 81 200 per day.
IS to the agents appointed on behalf Of the
tate TO conduct the foreclosure of the
lortgage and superintcnd the sales, | pre-
lme it will be conceded by every citizen
the State that three men more cOmpe-
mt and Of more irreprvachable integrity
character would not be found in the
tate, or outside of it. than Il bert j. Nc
.inney, Francis B. F, gg ani Archibald
Wright, and to there were added the Gov
nor, the Secretary of State and the
ON ptrOllcr.
To the defauting railroads the State had
ade an advance in her bonds, amounting
Sl4, 628, 000 and upon the foreclosure Of
e mortgage the gross proceeds of sale
mounted to only So, 698, 0C0 in the hands
the State, showing loss Of 81, 10000
ut does this heavy loss necessarily imply
aud or mlsmansgemen on the part OF
ose representing the State? But these
ads had not only shared in general de-
eciatiOn IF property values throughout
e State and country, but were IN a COM
,ratively dismantled and dilapidated con
ton, recurring large disbursements lor
pairs: and if it be alleged that the State
Ould have bid them in ut the sale ana
us avoided q sacrifice, the answer Is that
a had already tried the experiment of
ming railroads and with what success