Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1882-02-04
aDntitl,,ed from ETrst Pnae.

partmeEts, except only where ex-
press restrictions or limitations
were laid upon them in the written
constitution.
The object, purpose and wisdom
of the division was that neither
Department should exercise the
rights, powers and duties assigned
TO the other, and that each should
be independent of the other In re-
spect to the rights, powers and
duties assigned to them respective
ly.
Independence in each department
of the other, in respect to these
separate powers assigned them,
was the chiefand controlling reason
that induced this wise division of
power. The preservation ofthis sys-
tenn of government depends solely
and entirely upon the preservation
of this independence among the
three departments. Destroy the
independence of either department,
and you destroy the entire system.
This independence existing between
these several departments is the
very life-blOod of our system of
government-Open any vein and let
cut any portion of it, and the gov
eminent dwarfs and dies. Open
once the door on the flimsey pre-
text that the act is called "cOntrac-
tual in its character, and permit
the courts TO challenge the moral
integrity of the legislators vote,
and the fioodgates have been turned
loose, and the waters flow in with
no hand able to check its power or
divert its course, until our system
of government has been swept
away.
Through all these 100 years that
has marked the eventual history of
a great nation, and great people,
this spirit of one department rob-
bling the other, not of its power so
directly, but of its independence,
has been the most insidious and
dangerous enemy of our institutions.
1t has often wOOed to seduction the
legislative department and won the
gracious favor of the executive, but
each and every timeit has been met,
checked and defeated by the courts
with the constitution. Now hav-
ing been so often baffied and de-
feated elsewhere, it comes at last
and sues, with fiattering smiles and
tempting assurances of power for
place with the Judiciary.
What principle will sooner and
more effectively rob either depart
ments of government of its rightful
and constitutional powers than con-
ceding to one the right to challenge
the motives that induced the actions
of the other?
There is but one known measure
by which the Judiciary can measure
any legislative action, and that
measure is the written constitution.
Unless you can place your finger
upon the power in the constitution
to assume it is to usurp it.
If this act of the general assembly
to "settle and compromise the
bonded Indebtedness" of the state
was procured ever so wrOngfully,
to go beyond the constitution to
annul il, is none the less a crime.
If the legislature possesses the
power under the written cOnstitu-
ton to pass the act, the courts have
no jurisdiction to either criticise or
question 1.-THE motives, policy or
wisdom of the act are matters pur-
pOSely and necessarily left to be
settled between the legislator, his
conscience, and his constituency.
And let il be constantly borne in
mind that this dangerous power is
sought to be invoked, not by the
state in a direct attack upon an act
of the legislative power, but collat-
orally, by handful OF grumbling
and dissatisfied taxpayers against
the state.
Chief Justice Marchall, as far back
as 1910, in the case of Fletcher VS..
Peck, 6 Church 1901, dened in eff
feet the right or power of the
state of Georgia, if she had brought
suit in her own name through her
authorized officers, to question the
motives of the sovereign legislative
power of the state. The general
assembly in granting or directing
the Governor to grant and convey
the lands of the state of Georgia
through the act authorizing this
grant, was procured to be passed by
the bribery of the members of the
general assembly.
He does expressly decide and say:
"Whatever difficulties the subject
presents when viewed under aspects
of which it may be susceptible, this
court can conceive none in the par
ticuIar pleading now under consid-
Grafton. This is not a bill brought
by the state of Georgia to annul the
contract, nor does it appear to the
court that the state of Georgia is
dissatisfied with the sale that has
been made. This solemn question
cannot be brought thus collaterally
and incidentally before the court"
With what directnesS and cLncluS-
i've force this language applies to
the case at bar?
This is not bill brought by the
state of Tennessee to annul this set
Element of her debt. Nor does it
appear that the state of Tennessee
is dissatisfied with the settlement
that has been made. Only thirty
five taxpayers are dissatisfed-nOt
the state of Tennessee-thirty-five
taxpayers only bring this bill, and
seek TO stay the sovereign will OF
the state, under this act of her gen.
eral assembly providing for settle
ment of the acknowledged and adj
mitted Indebtedness of the state.
The state does not complain, but is
satisfied with the settlement. And
it may be satisfied. 1t is reduc-
ton of its annual interest npoE its
debt One-half; a saving of more
than $S00,000 to the state and its
taxpayers each year. 1t extends
the time for payment of the princi-
pal ninety-nine years, with the right
of the state reserved to redeem or
pay all or any part of it after FIVE
years.
The refunded bonds of the state,
under this settlement, cannot be
worth more than 60, or at most 90
cents on the dollar, on account of
the low rate of interest which they
must bear, and of course can be pur-
chased in the market at those prices
if the state shall deem it wise to do
so.
But greater, far greater than all
this is the moral advantage Of this
settlement. The honor of the state
and the character of the people can
not be measured in dollars and cents.
The settlement removes from pub
lie agitation the fruitful subject of
decentralization to the people and
disgrace to the state.
VN tho F-a,r,