Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1882-07-08
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SET
ELEMENTS.


1t will not be denied that very
much of the fierce and unreasOuine
warfare which has been wagcd
against thcG0-3 10 and settlement
both before and after its passage,
springs out of the belief-hOnest
and conscientious, we believe, in
the case of the misguided and ill.
advised maSSe5-that the State does
not owe all of the debt and even ii
she does, she cannot and ought not
to be made to pay G0-3-4-5 and pei
cent. OH the dollar.
We do not propose here to go into
the discussion of the question OF
this belief, whether right or wrong,
but we will add the carefully pre-,
pared statement of man who is
conceded to be as well-infOrmed as
any man in Tennessee on this debt
question.
In writing to the Courier-Journal
and showing the folly of opposing
the recent Legislative settlement
and running wildly off after the Re-
adjusters movement he says:
Did | not tell you some two years
ago that the condition of this peo-
pie was abnormal and inexplicabIe
and that it would require new phil
Osopher to clncidate the situation
Just think of it, Here we have
men in every county in this State
bowling themselves to hOarsness
anil still bowling because the Legis-
lature had dared to impose upon the
people an unbParable burden of
debt by settling with the creditors
at G0-3-4-5 8. And when these men,
representing the same oppressed
people, come together in the capital
of the State, with perfect unanimity
they adopt set of resolutions
which, il carried out, will for years
exact more of their limited means
as tribute money to the "blOated
bOndholder" than could the legisla-
tive settlement have done.
L have alread y suggested and also
more fully explained in my dis
patch of last night the amazement
that prevailed when 1t began to be
ascertained, on either side, that the
ultimate aggregate amount guaran-
teed to the bOndhOlders by the plat
form settlement would exceed that
already secured by the legislative
settlement. Figures, which cannot
lie, fully sustain this declaration.
Notwithstanding all the misrepre-
sensations of the lOw-taX philOsO-
pliers and arithmeticians--a decep-
ton that has at last led them into
the present awkward dilemma-the
various species of bonded indebted
ness enumerated in the platform
and known as the estate debt prop
en-" and whose payment in full is
sOlemnly pledged, amounted, ut
the close of the war, to at least
records OF the financial offices OF the
State. Now, with accumulated in
terest, this item stands swollen to
81, 100000. The entire debt of the
State at present is $50, 10000 in
round numbers. Let us reduce it
according to the platform plan.
Subtracting the estate debt prop
err" which remains forever at 1906,
we have So, 800, 900 TO be disposed
on the j0-3 principle. Dividing, we
have 81, 100000 to stand perma-
nently at 3 per cent. Formulating
the statement, we have it thus:
state debt proper 6pcr cent -.......-S7 10000
railroad debt q per cent ...-......... H. JOOOO
Total permanent $1,000
The annual amount of revenue to
be raised by taxation will stand
thus: - .... ..... ..
Six per cent on Estate debt proper" - 600
Three per cent. ON railroad debt ....... 337,5OO
Permanent debt tax Of state ....S7S7 500
Now, under the legislative settle
ment- 60-3-4- 5-G-the principal of
the debt is reduced to $4,000, 900,
being $750,O0O less than The plat
form figures. By an easy calcula-
ton it can be seen that not till after
the fifth year will the taxes under
plan exceed those of the
platform plan, by which the State
could have floated its debt at least
four per cent. The point of differ
ence Of any consequence is that the
legislative plan gives far lighter
taxes for several years at the pres
ent time when people are so clamOr-
Gus for relief. True, there will new
er come a time when this will not
be so, but still they do not think so
perhaps.