Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1882-04-01
AND GEORGIA DEBT
SECELEHENT.

MAYOR WIN. j. Sykes, gentle
man who is probably better in
formed on the State debt question
than any other man in the State
writes the following interesting let
ter to the Columbia Independent
on the settlement of Alabama and
Georgia's State Indebtedness
Would-be repudiators in this State
are fond of referring to these States
as criterions for their policy. Maj
Sykes shows the fallacy of their ar
gument.
In my remarks published in your
issue OF February 10th, said soap
ital passed by Tennessee that had a
ten cent State tax, and went to Ala
bama that had a sixty cent State
tax" In proof of this it may be
remarked that while Tennessee
manufactures only IL 500 bales of
cotton, Alabama manufactures IA,
8S7, and while Tennessee increased
only 125 per cent. in the manufac-
ture of iron, Alabama increased 1872
per cent, although we say our nat
ural advantages are far greater. 10
this it is replied that Alabama re-
duced her debt from $30,000,000 to
$l0,000,0 900, and that Georgia repu-
dated considerable portion of her
debt. Those who make these as
sertiOns know very little of the
true state of affairs in those States.
The eases of Alabama and of Geor-
gia are not at all similar to those of
Tennessee, as / will now proceed to
show.
The truth is that holders of bonds
endorsed by Alabama, received
more on them than the holders of
any other Southern bonds ever did
receive, for they not only received
what the State paid them, but the
railroads themselves, which the
bonds were issued to build. With
out going into discussion of the
Alabama settlement, it is only nec-
essary to state that Alabama settled
her debt with the consent of her
creditors, obtained before hand, af-
ter conference with them. Were it
necessary L could show that Ala
v
of her railroad debt, either before
or after the bonds were endorsed.
Alabama did not issue her own
bonds, but only endorsed the bonds
of the railroad companies. The
bond-holders by their own action
took possession of the railroads, and
the State transferred to them the
lien which she had upon these rail-
roads. The people of Alabama, be-
fore these bonds were endorsed, in
public meetings, by letters of their
most prominent citizens and by
their leading newspapers, notified
the world that the bonds were
fraudulent, SO far as the State was
concerned, and would not be paid
by the State. There were no inno-
cent purchasers, for they all had
notice before hand. Alabama had
some bonds issued before the war.
She paid the greater portion, if not
all of these which she had at any
time recognized. Her losses in
slave property and in the deprecia-
ton of other property during the
war amounted TO $276, GIG, ,267 whilst
those of Tennessee amounted to
$l35, ,266, ,191.
Alabama never in any manner
recognized these bonds. On the
contrary in Tennessee the bonds
now outstanding have been recog-
nized by all departments of the
government, Legislative, Executive
and Judicial. and by the people
themselves in various ways. The
Constitutional Convention in 1870
virtually recognized the whole debt
by failing to eliminate any portion
of it or to declare any of the bonds
void. The Democrats of Tennessee
in convention assembled in 1872,
unanimously endorsed the policy of
Governor John C.. Brown, who had
recommended in his message, fund
ing the entire debt in bonds bear
ing six per cent. interest. The
Legislature of 1S69-70, which sue
ceeded the Republican Legislature,
passed an Act authorizing the rail
road companies to pay their debts
to the State in the legally issued
bonds of any series, whereas the
Legislature had restrict
ed them to paying in their own
bonds. Under this Act and other
acts passed by the same Legislature,
the railroad companies that were
paid their debts to the State
and obtained receipts from Demo-
cratic officials. The insolvent roads
were sold by Democratic commits
sioners, under DEGREES obtained in
Democratic courts with the appa-
rent, if not real, appreciation of the
people.
The cases of Virginia and of Ten
nessee are. not at all similar to
those of Georgia and of Alabama,
and all well-informed business men,
outside and inside of the State know
this to be so and clearly under
stand the situation.
Alabama lCith the consent of her
creditors, obtained before hand,
made settlement which she has
carried out, although
there is no coupon feature.
This IS the true test. / do hope |
our creditors vii make a PROPOSE
ton or agree to accept settlement |
with the distinct understanding |
that this is the last they will make |
and the lowest terms they will |
accept. This will then present a
definite issue.
Georgia did not compromise her
debt at all. A constitutional con-
in that State declared void |
certain bonds which had been fraud
llently issued and of which the
State had received neither direct or
indirect benefits. She acted as
Tennessee did in regard to the Val
ey of Virginia Insurance Company
ponds and the Mineral Home rail
'oad bonds. She did not declare
void any bonds that had been rec
)gnized by the State.
In discussing this question all
passion and bitterness of feeling
hould be cast aside, for we are all
Is Tennesseans, interested in its
proper settlement. Denunciation
md abuse of each other will not in
my manner contribute to the settle
nent Of the question or elevate our
character as people. Those who
hink the State is in no danger of
having the entire debt, with its ac-
interest to pay eventu-
lily, may find themselves in a
trievous error.
There are few of us left who did
II we could to prevent the issuance
# bonds and keep the State out of
lebt, and am graitfied to say that
With one or two exceptions, they
re all in favor of making a Satis-