Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1882-02-18

D republic may consist with moral obli99tio,
Is neither coerciye nor derogatory 90 sovcE
. eighty- Ihe Wild privilege of running one
5 sell and bringing ruin and disgrace upon al
around one is not such Independence "a
may demand thesupports of courts or a
should be sustained by civil guarantees
When the ability is lost IL may well be tina
the moral obligation ceases or is suspended
The new circumstances may justify n re
peal, and this repeal we must suppose would
be sustained by the Federal court, IA moi
lmpairing the obligation of contracts In
thls view the coupon feature becomes mere
~ convenient mode of providing for pay
ment of public debt. To borrow money Tor
public purposes, all will agree Is within the
competency of the General Assembly. Sup
pose the same law that authorizes the bor.
rowing of the money provides also for It's
payment and mode OF payment by such a
provision as that here, and that lenders
part with their money under such a law ex-
pressed on the face OF the bond. Topromise
70 pay interest on the loan indefinitely until
to get fiveyears or more Of credit on the loan
competent.
To provide that this interest shall come
out OF the taxes as fund, these being the
! only means of payment the State has, to
| pledge the faith and honor OF the State that
But TO undertake to make Il certain that
| the Interest shall be paid by making the
law self-enforcing at all hazards that there
may not be enough of the taxes to pay the
| interest and at the same time pay the ex-
| penses Of the Government. There is the
trouble. Public contracts are not obligatory
uhder all circumstances. The organized
civil republican government of Tennessee
cannot be brought to a deadlock or stand
stlll In the enforcement OF any contract how
ever IL may be written or under whatever
guarantees or sanction IL may be placed.
Oportet reivere, il must live, aIiG it has first
law ofnature. But itcannot Indulge in sham
pretences of starvation, and under these
withhold It's surplus. Public debentures
look to the ordinary vicisStudes of the life
OF State as the measure of their obligation.
nf ina nFah
volcanic erruptions and earthquakes, talk
Ing away means TO pay taxes, would break
the chains of contract and justify the refu-
sal of state to allow the last morsel neces-
sary to its life TO be snatched from IL or its
Inhabitants. Extreme cases Of this descrip-
ton would demand Of every Jurisdiction,
that there should be a Suspension or denial
of remedies provided for cases reasonably
within human foresight. The pound OF
flesh never was and never can be demand
able. To suppose that the Supreme Court
of the United States would otherwise ad-
minister the law Is, in my opinion, a libel
upon our highest judicial tribunal. But to
make no obligatory contract, to get no good
and beneficial compromises out OF the State
creditors when the contract may run
through years, for convenience, and be se-
cured by a heavy stress occasionally upon
human labor and capital would, in my
opinion, be to act upon fine spun philos-
ophy OF possibilities rather than upon the
practical xperience OF every day life. SUCH
contracts may be at intervals, harass and
somewhat distress the obligers, but in the
consequences are but the common evil of
large Indebtedness,
Ifsuch contracts are made by competent
authority at the time they should be and
they will be enforced, not as shacltle upon
the proper free Will of the State, but as u
gentle but necessary curb TO mere savage
impattence of restraint.
Shall we now in this case, before the con-
tract is completed which may be beneficial
TO the State, out OF which probobly no in
convenience will ever arise, and from
which, II accepted and yet void, no obliga-
tion can arise, undertake 10 say that Il shall
not be operative7 II the coupon feature be
ultra wires IL is so only because Il is "A shack
le; the moment in which IL Is TO become a
shackle IL drops OFF or breaks Of itself, or is
declared 10 be no shackle, because In Its
terms obligatory. The plain result from
this is that we cannot now declare that n
limit and obstruction 20 future legislation
which loose that character the mOment
really puts bounds TO legislation at all, it liz
because it is n contract which the Legisla-
ture was competent TO make. IL may be n
mischievous law, but this II not TO the pur-
pose, IL may be that policy would demand
It's being enjoined, but this could not be
done by the court for want ofpower. Push
consideration arises, who is 10 be the Judge
when the exigency has arisen that may
Justify the suspension or repeal of the law2
II IL be the exercise ofa political right which
rises superior to the right under formal
contract, the Legislature must be regarded
as the final authority tn the premises. How
would regard this under a case OF last neces-
sity in behalf Of the State IL is, think, easy
to say. That they would not regard re-
peal under ordinary circumstances as po-
litical act, Is manifest from their decision I'm
the case OF Hartman VS.. Greenhow, above
reIerred TO; The court would, in my opin-
as above, the obligation of the contract.
1t is only to THESE absolute necessities we
need look, as these could form an only eX-
cuse for what would otherwise be dGreiic-
tion ofduty. But the Supreme Court of the
United States would in any event, be the
ultimate judges in a matter which we have
TO them in becoming members
OF the Federal Union. From time TO time
many things have been made receivable for
taxes, besides gold and silver, bank notes,
treasury notes, etc. This was, however, in
most cases a mere privilege, liable at any
time To be withdrawn, or II TO be considered
amounts, or changable on special descrip-
tion of revenues and differing, ms 1 appre-
hend, in principle from the present case.
The magnitude OF the issue of coupons, the
appearing on their face, the time
TO which they are extended ms tender for
all taxes and dues, to the State causes them
TO stand on a different ground from that OF
other tax receivables, but not where such
ground rs that they can ever become an OBJ
stacle to the freedom of proper legislation
by the state. 1t Is not every irrepenlable
law that is unconstitutional, Il is only such
laws as are an improper restraint upon fu-
ture legislation. Grants and contracts,
pure ana simple, are certainly Incapable or
repeal, and yet are constitutional. In the
words improper restraint lies the gist OF the
The right of reputation OF n
ust debt, IL not contradiction In terms, IN
\ something which is not entitled 10 any
guarantees 10 give such adebt sanction. and
guarantees of whatever nature Is not an Inn
proper exercise of power, provided they do
not reach tO the obstruction ofthe healthful
exercise OF other governmental functions.
These coupons never can reach the point OF
uch oOStruct1Ons under a proper discharge
)f duty by subsequent Legislatures, and u
proper administration of law, in other
words never can be, AN improper re-
Something bas been said upon the sub.
ect OF appropriations as connected with
he coupon feature. The provision of the
constitution quoted In this connection Is as
ollows: "No money shall be drawn from
he treasury but in consequence OF npprO-
,riations made by law, anu an accurate
tatement Of the receipts and expenditures
" the public money shall be attached 70
ND published with the laws at the rise OF
ach stated session of the General ASSEM-
'ly." In view OF this provision of the Com
Is money 10 b drawn from the
reasury under this act, and II so, is it with
ut appropriation? 1.-THE mode Ofpayment
4 the coupons is drawing money from the
treasury the appropriation for the two cur
ent years is already made. And so no tax
'ayer is yet hurt. The coupons come in the
tatement of receipts and expenditures can
'e made and all things will be right. The
anne thing may go on for the next two years
4 the General Assembly comes on and the
axes are laid only to meet government eN-
enses and the Tax Collectors are forbidden
0 receive coupons for taxes. Then for the
rst time comes up the practical question
Nth which above courts interfere. A bill
uia tiInet Is not needed II the legislature
as the power To pass such a law. 1fit has
ot, IL Will be because the Legislature had
he power In 1881 TO then anticipate nppro-
riatlons 10y a valid contract, and no appro-
riation in form Is necessary. There is no
threatened damage 10 the tax payers and no
Dom or rote for IA bill quia timet. Yet under
his bill we are called on % do the grave
hing OF holding an act of the Legislature
old for this anticipative appropriation,
ne of the highest, ifnOt the very highest
Xerclse Of judicial power, without necessity.
he bondholder cannot complain, us he
axes the contract with the fun knowledge
{ It's infirmity ~ any. He must take his
hances OF future Legislatures and of the
ederal court. Again q law thus anticipat-
lg the revenue in the future Is valid, prima
lcie there being no limit In the Constitu-
on on the subject. lt is at the utmost only
oidable or repealable at the will of the leg
'lature to be exercised only when an ex-
,ency deInonstrats IL subject TO the check
I Federal Jurisdiction. But the money In
ne case before the court, Is not 20 be drawn
'om the Treasury. The act of 1873 In regard
, suelng the State distinguishes between
ne treasury funds aud property Of the
tate" A direction that particular indi-
idual shall be paid out of fund before 10
caches the treasury IN not drawing money
ON the treasury though 10 Is an apprOpriR-
on. An appropriation then for "A longer
,rIn than two years il not forbidden even n
appropriations To be drawn from the treas
~ are. But there Is no such limit as 10 the
me when the money IA To be drawn from
ne treasury. The Limitation is that A
lOneV IL drawn from the Treasury n nugt