The Russellville Democrat., 1880-04-01

you deem the debt sham and you call upon all of your neighbors to as semble on certain day and vote on a proposition that it is . sham and that neither you nor your agents or legal representatives shall ever pay It. On the appointed day your neighbors assemble and 80 vote. Now VIC submit it as plain propo- sition, that this vote of your nsigh- bors afforded you no relief whatever. You had already been relieved of the obligation by your supreme court, and by calling upon your neighbors to vote upon it, you simply indulged ln a piece ot child's play which showed that you either lacked busi- ness sense, or that you lacked con fidence in your supreme court, or both.
 As it is in this supposed case, just so it is in the case of the Rail road and Levee bonds. The su- preme court has already relieved the people of them. No legislature can ever recognize them or make pro- vision for their payment, unless majority of the members thereof deliberately perjuro themselves. Every member of the legislature takes solemn oath to support the constitution and laws of the State. The decisions of our supreme court are law to our people and to our leg islators, and the member of the leg islature who would enact law pro- viding for the payment of debt de clared void by the supreme court would perjure himself. He would al- so violate the present constitution and, therein perjure himself again. Answer to question 3d.
 We deny that the adoption of the amendment will, in reality, relieve the State of single dollar, or settle single point of the question of indebtedness involved. IF IT WILL reheve us of any debt, IT CAN ONLY BE THE SMALL PORTION OF THE HoL FORD BONDS WHICH HAVE THE EQUlT ABLE COLOR OF HAVING BROUGHT THE STATE SOME VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. The State did receive on these bonds some money over $l20,000. If we owe anything on the bonds it is only this sum and accrued interest. It Is claimed that this sum had already been paid back. If so we owe noth- ing on the bonds, and if we owe nothing, the amendment will relieve us of nothing. Whether we do owe anything on the bonds is a question which should be fairly adjusted by the courts. The IPsE DIxIT of the popular vote Is not the way to settle q question involving legal points. But allowing that we do-ewe some thing on the Holford bonds, we still Leellaim that the adoption of the amendment would not settle tho ob- ligation, and would not prohibit the legislature from paying it. This proposition, when taken in Connec- tion with the wording of the amend ment, may seem paradoxical, but we believe when the matter is thorough ly probed the position can be sus- tained. In fact, we can adduce the assent of one of the main sup porters of the measure, to this prop osition--no less a man than one ofthe candidates tor the office of governor, Judge Ali. M. Wilson. who stands flat footed upon the amendment. He
 is lawyer and man of good sound views, and his admissions ought to be good. In the speech of that gentle man. made short time ago at the Opera house in Little Rock, he IS re- ported to have said:
 Judge Wilson thought that the State did not justly and legally owe g single dollar on any of these pre- tended Obligations; certainly tho bonds, themselves, were illegal and void; but he did not think the amendment, if adopted, would cut off any consideration into whatever equitable claims the holders of these bonds might have against the State, for work done, the benefit of which the State received. If, for instance, he said, there was any levee work done in good faith, which was ben eft to the State, for which the con tractors received bonds, while he would not recognize the validity or obligation of the bonds, he would consider any clam for work done, on it's own individual merits; and did not think the amendment would cut of such inquiry by the legislature. That the amendment operated only against the bonds and not against any nre-eSisfinO deht nn which thev