Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1880-07-31


the following foot-note 10 page Is Of Comp
troller BlackbErn's report for 1869. Refer
ring to the East Tennessee & Georgia road,h
:sThe stock owned by the state In this rail-
road is reduced from S650,000 to S225 900 as
above by the act of May "a, 1896, appropri-
ating $i25, 900 Of said stock for the benefit of
certain turnpike companies, retaining lien
on same. The names OF these turnpike COM
panies, with the amount loaned eachs viii
be found under the head OF Bonds loaned
turnpike companies The East Tennessee
& Georgia road asserts that the original stock
in said road was scaled down so that the
state interest was reduced down from $780,
600 to S425,O00, but the state having issued her
bonds for S65000O, and no portion of them
having been returned or cancelled, the above
charge is made to balance the bond account,
although the claim may be worthless"
Your committee have been able TO ind
but one obscure act, that of Feb. 4, lS4ss sec
tfOns and g. authorizing the "Sc0ling" OF
the stock in the East Tennessee d Georgia
road. But what action was taken thereun-
der, by whom, when, who represented tine
was adopted, we have been unable to hnd
out While all tine stock of the state in this
road may have been fully accounted for,
stiIl in view of all the facts, we suggest that
the proper state officer be directed to look
into the matter, and, If the states rights
have not been fully, fairly and honestly re-
spected, assert them
This is the whole of the commit
tees case against the bonds in ques-
ton. The question "What has be-
come of the stock ?" comprises the
whole gist of the argument; but
what have the bondholders to do
with that question? The state gave
its bonds to the company for the
stock, and certainly received it, and
the company paid out those bonds
for work and material used in the
structure of the road. What bust
ness have these holders or their
representatives with the subsequent
disposal of the stock for which the
bonds were paid? What is it to
them whether the state still holds il
or has disposed of it or been swim
died out OF It? They furnished
value for the bonds and have right
to payment quite irrespective of the
subsequent disposal of the stock.
Put a similar case in private bus.
mess: 1 give my bond of 500 for g
horse; 1 subsequently turn the horse
out in the woods and he is stolen by
horse-thieves or eaten by bears ano
wolves; the holder of my bond pre-.
sents it for payment and I answer
tI ought not to pay that bond;
have got nothing to show for 1t
that stupid groom Of mine turned
him out in the woods, and / shall
never see him again." Why, the
very children would laugh at suct
plea. The bond-hOlder would say
"You got the horse for your money
it was your business to take care o
him; 1 am not responsible for wha
became of him after he came int
your hands; you got the horse anc
I want the money for him.
On this head, then, we have
nothing further to say. The com
plete irrelevancy of the charg'
against this class of bonds is hes
shown by printing entire, as W.
have done, the portion of the repor
which refers to them. Of course We
agree with the committee that The
proper officer ought to enquire TO,
the missing stock and recover it i
possible, but this enquiry is no con
Germ whatever of the bond-hOlders
They gave value for the bonds they
received and are entitled to thei
money, whatever may have become
of the stock which was originally
purchased with the bonds.
1t seems incredible that such al
argument should be relied upon by
business men to impeach in behal
of the state the validity of the state
own paper, but there is nothing else
we have printed every word tina
appears on the report.
Next week we will close the sub
ject by discussing what may b.
called the security bonds.