Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1880-07-24
ARE TENNESSEE BONDS JUSTLY
DUE?

ARE TENNESSEE BONDS JUSTLY
DUET
We are forced to apologize for
introducing this question at the
present time. So much has been
said on the subject during the last
six years that many of our readers
will think that we might as well
discuss the question whether George
Washington is dead or not. But
our readers have a right tC the best
information we can give them on
matters of public interest, and we
are informed that there are still
honest men in this country who
need information in the premises
that there are still men who believe
that the whole debt of the state
ought to be paid dollar for dollar, if
justly due, whatever the sacrifice
may be, but who have heard that a
large portion of our bonds are
fraudulent and not justly due; and
these men want specific Information
on thesubjoct. They PROFESSIONALLY
have a right to it, and it shall be
furnished them to the best of our
ability.
Prior to the session of the Tennes-
see legislature of 1883, there was
some excuse for doubts; assertions
by stump orators had been so per-
sistently made of the invalidity of
most Of the bonds, that people began
to believe that there must be some
truth in it. At the commencement
of the session of assembly above
mentioned, Governor Marks in his
inaugural message brought the al
legged invalidity of the bonds to the
attention of the assembly and adj
vised that a committee should be
appointed to investigate the subject.
That was low-tax legislature, and
il appointed a committee consisting
of large prepOnderance of lOw-tax
men; in short, five of them to two
state-credit men. We have a right
to say that if committee so consti-
tuted could allege nothing substan-
TALLY affecting the validity of the
bonds, their validity is unimpeach-
able. We will examine, therefore,
the reports Of that committee and
ascertain what they have to- say on
the subject. The committee pub
lished two reports, a majority report
signed by the five low-tax men, and
a minority report signed by the two
state-credit men. We may as well
give their names. Majority report
Messrs. S. F. Wilson, r. II. Smith,
John NJ. Driver, ID. l.. SnOdgrass,
II. f. Haynes and n. Gregg. Mi
nOrity repOrt-Messrs. J. w. Clapp
and It. III. Smith.
We shall direct our attention
chiefly to the majority, or lOw-tax
report, as here, if anywhere, we
must expect to find vSlid objections
TO the legality of the bonds.
The first thing done in this report
is a classification of the bonded debt
of the state. Their first division OF
them is into
THE DEBT PROPER AND THE RAIL-
ROAD DEBT.
The expression "debt proper"
was a most unfortunate one, for ii
has led many men, on superficial
consideration of the subject, to sup
pose that when the term was adopt
Ell it was intended to intimate that
only the portion so designated was
a Just debt at all. Nothing of the
sort was intended; it was only meant
TO intimate that that portion OF the
debt had certainly to be paid, what
ever happened, while the railroad
bonds had only To be paid in case
the railroads failed to meet their
obligations. Before the bankruptcy
of the railroads and their sale, the
term, though an unfortunate one,
had its meaning; it meant that that
which was called the debt proper
was an absolute liability, while the
other was only a contingent one;
not indeed n debt at all, unless the
railroads should fail i'm their liabili- |
ties; but now the railroads have
failed, the debt is no longer a con-
tingent one, and the distinction is
no longer Apostle; the whole debt |
is a debt proper.
The distinction that did exist was
exactly the same as that which ex-
lists in private business between
mans liabilities arising out of his
own business, and those dependent |
upOn the business OF men for whom
he has gone security. So long as
those men are solvent he does not /
consider that he owes the security |
money, aud there would be some |
DrOpriety in calling his own business
iebts his debt proper; but once let
hose become insOlvent for whom he
has given security, and then the
debts become as absolutely
,is debts in law as the others, ana
he whole is to be considered his
sdebt proper" or else the expression
ihould be dropped altogether. The
abroad bonds, therefore, constitut-
no no longer a contingent but an
,bSolute debt, the term "debt !