Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1879-07-31
FIGHTING A BONDED
DEBT. j
TIE Contest Between Kentucky
Town and New York Bankers.

TIE Contest Between a Kentucky
Town and New York Bankers.
Eiizabethtown, KY, at vote
taken in 1868, decided 10 issue
bonds 10 the amount of STD, COO
in aid of the construction of the
EsizabcthtoNn and Paducah
Railroad. This vote was OBJ
tanned by tho. representations
Of those most prominent in the
enterprise, that the piincipa.
machine shops of the road
should be located there. The
bonds were issued to the road
and all sold by the corporation,
and stock in the road 10 the a.
mount OF $4,000 was issued to
the town. On these bonds the
Interest at seven per cent. per
annum was paid mp to 1874,
when the Cccilian branch of the
Paducah road was completed
and the trains ran through to
Louisville. OF necessity the
machine shops, such as they
were, were built in that city,
none having ever been erected
at Elizabethtown. Thenit was
that the people of Elizabeth
town refused to longer pay the
interest or the bonds, claiming
that the management Of the road
had violated their contract in e
roctihg the principal shops in
another place. Drcxd, Morgan
81 Co., and HalIgarten ~ CO.,
which firms had become the
posscssoFs Of about ST0,500
worth, Of the bonds, then
brought suit against the trustees
ofthe town OH the unpaid cOu-
lJons, and after a hardly fought
legal battle, Judge Ballard de-
cidcd the case IN their faYor,aud
rendered n Judgment qganis;
the trustees for about $17 500.
When This Judgment asrcn-
dercd the Trustees resigned, and
the town was without a city
government, and, though sue
cessofs have been elected each
! year, they have repeatedly re-
fused TO qualify. After tlieh
resignation the boudholflers be-
gan a series OF cfiorts.to compel
0leyy of flax to pay their judg-
mcnt, and, TO this end, procured
a mandamus 10 be issued by the
Federal Court compelling the
trustees 10 levy The tax. The
trustees were summotlcd before
the court and responded. Judge
Ballard held that their. resigna-
Ilion was not good, and that
they were trustees until theil
successors were elected and
iqualificd. They were put un-
der bonds Of 81, 600 each and a
gain ordered to make the levy,
Upon their return homo they
met, appointed an assessor, and
decided on Il levy of six and
one-hall per cent, or six dollars
and a half TO the hundred doIr
Iais' worth of property, to pay
the Judgment. When the levy
was completed they appoint
ed several collectors, but each
onein turn refused to qualify OF
give bond. They even went SC
| far as to advertise for a collec-
tor, but no one responded to the
] eall. When the rule against
them was rctulnablc they ap-
Ipeared before Judge Ballard
REPORTED theft. action, and he
very promptly discharged them,
1.-THE boEdholders then adycrtis-
led for a collector, Offering TWEEN
lily per cent, but no one would
undertake The job. In despair
of ever getting anything by this
plan, the hondholdcrs hit upor
another scheme. They based
their plea on the ground thai
] the.cxecntion against the trns.
tees having been returned, ""NC
! property found" and that theS
had made a levy of a certain
sum, those levied on were in.
debtcd to the trustees in tht
sum levied, and they were suet
by way Of garnishment,D an.
prayed that the garnishecs b
compelled fopay into court fliO
amount of thcii. Indebtedness. (
the trustees in discharge of tht
!, bondholders' debt. About fifty
j, or sixty OF the largest tax-pay'
,1ers were made defendants ant
garnishccs, and all who were
! levied upon were included
. though not specially named.
}, This plan scared the people
!. The question whether they arr
liable under this new proceed
ling is still pending On tht
call Of the case, demurrers wert
filed 10 The action, on thi