Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1880-08-07
AXE TENNESSEE BONDs JUSTLY
DUE?

ing else can.
ARE TENNESSEE BONDs JUSTLY
DUE?
(THIRD PAPER.)
We have disposed of what is COM
monty spoken ofas the 'sdebt proper"
of Tennessee, and explained that, as
things now stand, the whole debt is
a debt proper. We come now to
what was only contingently a debt,
the bonds loaned to the railroad
companies and secured to the state
by lien on the roads. This having
been originally a contingent debt,
for which the state was only to be-
come liable if the railroad compa-
mics failed to liquidate them, was at
one time distinguished from the
debt proper, but since the insolvency
of those companies it has become a
part of the debt proper of the state,
and is absolutely and no longer con-
tingently due from the state to the
bond-holders. AS an inevitable
consequence of the war, the railroad
companies became insolvent, the
state seized them as security against
liability for the bonds, sold them for
what they were worth, and so be-
came solely liable for their liquida-
ton. The present railroad compa-
mics bought them of the state.
A logical consequent CT this trans
action was the refunding of the old
bonds with their past-due interest
coupons in other words, an assump-
ton of the debt, which was now
doubly incumbent on the st&te, first
as the original maker Of the bonds,
secondly as the representative of the
railroads whose property the state
had seized by foreclosure of its mort
gage on them. e
And now we are called upon to
determine the legality of these
bonds bearing the broad seal of the
state.
From the nature of the case there
is only one way of doing this; name
ly, by rebutting any alleged evil
dence of their illegality. The sig
nature of the governor and the seal
of the state is p1'tpaa .facie evidence
of their legality, which can only be
impugned by positive evidence of
forgery or of incompetence in the
signing officer.
We seek in vain throughout the
report of the low-tax committee for
such proof or even such allegation
against a single bond bearing the
seal of this state. The difficulty of
defence in this instance is that the
adverse report does not definitely
attack the validity of single bond.
1t makes loose general assertions
without proof that the prescribed
conditions were not complied with
by the officers executing the bonds !;
for instance, that they sold the
bonds below par in some instances,
but it does not undertake to show
with reference to a single specified
bond that it was sold below par. 1t
throws suspicion of dishonesty on
legislatures, especially upon the Leg
islature which passed the refunding
bills; speaks of members being
measured for suits of clothes which
a railway agent paid for, but it does
not disprove that the bonds and
coupons refunded were really due
and that the refunding act was
passed in due form and duly re-
corded. 1t also alleges that the re-
funding legislature transacted its
business under the fear of a second
reconstruction bill, etc., etc. e
Now what lawyer, what man of
common sense would undertake to
pronounce legislative action invalid
by impugning the motives of indi-
vidual Legislators? That there were
knaves and fools in the refunding
legislature we do not doubt; he
would be bold man who would
predicate the absence of that ubiqui-
tous species from any legislature
that ever sat in Tennessee or else
where. There have been plenty of
them in the national legislature, but
who disputes that the acts of con-
gress are valid and the contracts it
made binding? To dose would be
to unsettle all the public business of
this or any other nation and to
make government securities of all
sorts worth less than the paper they
are written on.
Seeing, then, that O committee
constituted of men who had been
for years crying out that the bonds
were invalid failed to attack the
validity of a single bond, though
appointed for the express purpose
Of scrutinizing them; seeing that it
has confined itself to loose general
imputations upon the motives of
legislators who partly constituted
the authority for issuing the bonds
the inevitable Inference is that
there is no cause for denying their
validity, and that the state is strict
ly bound by them in law, honor
and morality. There is no further
room for argument.
STILL THEY COME.