Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1881-04-21
A REPLY TO A REPLY.
L. q. T. shows the Difference bes
tween True Democracy
and True Mahoneism.

Gu bu6 duSMtT VI LAuO OOmOOIhb v
my statement of the 10Th, %settinI
forth the fdnder side of the contro
versy in Virginia. In one thing
think him very fortunate, namely, il
having the large majority Of his friend
in the Old Dominion of the funde
stripe. They are fine fellows, who's,
friendship or principle is never in dan.
ger of being readjusted or repudiated
but is always at par, In his reply t
my arguments in favor of the fundel
view, | cannot so earnestly congratu
late him, as by his own confession TIT
most important differences lie in tbs
way a thing is stated" though we al
know that the same thought may APP,
pear under a thous nd different forms
Of expression. To himI take the TURKEY
and you take the buzzard, or you take
the buzzard and | take the turkey, ARE
statements as distinctly and widely
apart as the poles of the earth, though
in each "I' am to dine on the savOry
flesh of the turkey, while you" are t
masticate the tough and nauseous bird
of carrion proclivities. AS example
of his way of arguing, st. d. states
These readjusters have the old-fash-
Toned Virginia J%effersonian republi.
cau-democratic notion that they elect
officers to serve and represent them
and to consider their interests, and
that (those2) Of the state, and that
they will be capable Of framing legis.
lative bills to execute their wishes and
meet their needs without going abroad
to Learn the latter or for the draft Of
the former" Without pausing to re-
adjust the ambiguous use of the pro,
nouns they" and their" in this
cumbrous sentence, or to notice more
han by a passing word the tau Jology
in such expressions as ito serve" Ito
represent" and ito consider their
Interests" l ask what is the conclu-
s on he reaches from a premise so
deliberately drawn? Why, simply that
it is a piece Of impertinence for the
creditors to approach the legislature
except by petition" and that it is
derogatory to the sovereignty Of a
state to consult those with whom it
he's entered into solemn engagements.
JUST as if even a notion" of read
~justers could make what is right, per
Sc, lose its character and become a
wrong. Either creditors of a state
have rights or they have not. If they
have none, then it is folly to talk
about readjustment, but reputation
utter and thorough is eminently
proper. If, on the other hand, credi
tors have rights, a petition which rec
ognizes no Obligation on the part of
the object of it, but only an arbitrary
will, to decide and execute as it
pleases, is out Of place. A man that
has a right, will demand and not beg.
If creditors have no rights, ltheu why
ST. d." docs the constitution of Vir-
ginia and that Of the United States
declare, mo state shall impair the
obligation of contiacts?" This OPP
position to consulting creditors is all
iddlesticksl 1t is emioenlly correct
and proper and neither impairs the
sovereignty Of the state nor detracts
from its dignity.
"T. d." declines to discuss the equi-
ties of. the war interest" and has
nothing to say regarding the funding
of that interest, and its consequent
incorporation in the body of the debt.
refers the discussion of this point
to the forum" and the "hustings."
Constituting, as the war interest does.
one Of he most important issues be
tween the parties in Virginia, | am
astonlshed he treats it with such in
difference. Not only was this inter-
est recognized by the funding act Of
1870, but anterior TO this time by the
act Of 1866. He does. indeed, make a
brief allusion to a difference l raised
as to the non. application of private
decisions to the law afectipgtne state,
and in this connection takes occasion
to exalt the state above the indiyid
ual, remarkiug that be infers | exalt
the individual above the state. This
is on a par with many other differences
Of 1T. D." and especially with one
he draws, where / was never so en-
innocent of giving offense.
seems to intimate that |
intended the question with which
| headed my article, (Which
the gentleman, readjuster or fund
e.?" as in a manner attributing ungen-
tlemally qualities to TesdjUst-
ers personally, and in this
connection, too, he has been Law
ish il remarking upon the "peculiari-
Of fuDders. | might take up
some time in describing the peculiari-
ties ofreadjuster for they have quite as
remarkable development Of idioJyn
erasies and quite as distinct qualities
as iunders. Nothing makes the aver
age readiuster more angry than any at
tempt made 70 show him that forcible
readjustment, 10 far as it goes, is repu.
dat on. Reputation shocks their
delicate seDsiDilities, while read ust.
ment is a mild expression, not so sue.
g%estiye, it is true, but admirably adap.-
ed TO sootbe their sensitive FEELINGS
aud mystify the judgments Of others.
Let no readjuster feel uneasy on the
Of (which is ths gentleman?
/ intended Only 10 convey by my words
the question Of which was right re.
Varding the political issuesiu Virginia.
For though most Of my friends in that
state are flinders, / am acquainted
many readjusters whose personal
integrity is above reproach, however
they may be on the state debt
question.
But 70 return 10 the inference that
I'D draws o. 10 my views regarding
state and citizen, / may gay that
never was a greater error committed
fully agree with IT'D" as to the
superior dignity Of the state. But The
conclusion ! draw il entirely different
f0m lfg auFuoq Tie aIaf.ta q. |