Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1880-04-03

~ 'A~~Nh Va tttN F6CeftNeS rs may u
necessary to pay the interest, an,
are they bound by contract to set /
apart for that ecciusiUe purpose.
That a Legislature may enact
flaW. emb0dying the elements of
contract, whichn0 0subseQuent Legis
lature can change, is principal 10,
familiar to the profession to fequirl
any extended reference to authority
The case of Fletcher vs.. Peck, {
Cranch, p. 81, Is the leading case.
II the profession shall decide thai
1.-The third section Is a contract. witt
1 all who funded or registered undel
Il, then a Jottolrs that the act Oi
1873, ch. /, after the funding and
registration had taken place, Is j
nulIity. This act upon les face
furnishes indubitable evidence thai
It was an attempt to get clear OF
what was deemed bad cogafgocf.
I The next and only remaining
question is. can this contract be en-.
forced by the courts without the
State beinga party?
The State connOt be sued; but sup.
pose the courts hold that the State
made contract witha all who hold
our funded or registered honds. and
in that contract set nport, Or made il
the duty ofthe Treasurer TO SET az
for that e.rclttsire purpose SO much OF
the revenues as may be benecessary TO
payfthe Interest, and suppose the
Treasurer refuses TO set apart ESQ
much rs may be necessary" accord
ing TO the contract, can the courts
compel the perfOrmaaceof of this duty
without the State being sued? iiifi
This ] submit is not an open ques-
tion, "
The cases of Osborn VS.. the Uni
ted States Bank, 0 Wheaton, 73e;
Davis VS. Gray, 10 Wallace, 203;
Board of Liquidation VS.. McComb,
2 Otto, 53l, are absolutely conclusive
upon this question so far as the Su-
preme Court of the United States Is
concerned. $500 Hfr uYsNu
IL the money--the revenues-as
collected is charged with a trust by
contract, then the very fact that the
State cannot be sued is the reason
givenwhy the courts will take hold
Of the officer and compel him to per
form the trust.
1t is sometimes said that other
machinery will be adopted for coll
lecting and paying out the revenue.
This needs no reply. Fraudulent
devices by a State will not stand In
the way OF enforcing contract. The
courts will treat all who handle the
revenues as being bound by the con
tract. al gd sriaf
The writer has been prompted 10
bring this question before the legal
profession, because he happens to
know, as a fact, that the question
has been submitted by the holders
of our bonds to their counsel. who
returned an answer favorable to the
bondholders, and the question will
have to be met. % Il.Ill I HTH
Knowing this fact, and believing
that the courts will, by judicial pro-
cess, reach our revenues, the writer
cannot for a moment agree to the
that, for the sake Of
harmony in the party, the settle
ment of our State debt must be post
poned.
Under the impending danger,
such q course would border closely
upon idioey. Our creditors now pre-
fer compromise to litigation. The
in the State not only
insist upon the validity of the debt,
but that we are able and ought 10
pay the whole debt. The Demo
cratic party is committed to a COM
promise. This they can now get;
not after litigation, II the question
should be decided against US.
To postpone the settlement is 60
decide that the courts shall settle the
question; hence the importance of
having the profession speak out.
Thewriter, in a few speeches over
the State last year, ventured to say
that the Supreme Court Of the Uni
ted States was 'prOgreSsive." Has
this been verified by the recent de-
When the court hOldsthat
may be appointed by
Federal authority to supervise and
control State elections, and that one
citizen of a State who murders an
other citizen of the State is not
to the criminal laws Of
the State, If the former happens to
be in the employ of the Federal
Government, are we not progTes-
sing?
/ desire to ask of the legal profes-
sion of Tennessee one question::
Who, among the lawyers, having
a reputatiOn-as a awyer-which
he is not willing to sacrifice, will,
when a suit is commenced In the
Federal Court by the holders of
under the third section Of
the funding act, say to the Governor
4 can defeat the action; can, be-
fore the Supreme Court Of the Uni
ted States, prevent the enforcement
of the third section? i am asking
this question of lawyers, not men
who aresimply politicians-some Of
these men would undertake TO do
Memphis has a bar not
by any city Of the same
size. Nashville has a good bar.
Chattanooga and jack
son have strong men, and IL Is
that many OF the best law
yers of the State live in the country
towns. Ifany man Of State reputa-
tion will say that he can protect the
revenues Of the State when this suit
Is brought / trust the American
will give him the space to be fully
heard. II no such man comes for
ward, then shall we postpone or
settle?
Those who desire to inform them
selves on the question Of our State
debt would do well TO send to East
man, Howell e. Tavel's for a t.opy
Of the little book lately writteii by
the Hon. Jordan Stokes. IL is, per-
haps, the ablest paper ever written
upon the legal aspect of our State
debt. A. s. Q.