Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-10-04
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
Review OF the Law and Logic of Archi'
bald w right ON the .Stats-Debt Qdes-

1t has been said that observation-disclosures
it be accompanied by bloody clash of arms,
or bloodess clash of opinion-lf, at last,
but a great principle in violent action. The
conflict now going on in the State oil len
nessee upon the question, !How and when Is
the public debt to be se,tled?" though hse!y
to remodel political parties, sever friendships
and shake our social fabric to It's nethermost
foundations, will, nevertheless, result in
good to the body polite, IL Will educate the
people and their creditors upward" TO the
standard OF even-handed justice. IL Will, on
the other hand, develop the argument and
show the real Status OF the controversy, that
all the world may know that this 4uarrei
between the State and the bondhoider may
have a speedy and peaceful solution, without
disnonor on tue one side or injustice on the
other 1t is good augury that our fellow
citizen, the Hon. Archibald Wright, has
Thought this question not unworthy oil his
welI-accred ted powers and has given the
public the benefit OF his reflections IN series
OF able papers published in last weeks Issue
of the AUalanche. We say it is a good
sugury, because this question, as IT touches
the honor and welfare of this COM
monwealth, stands as high above 81
political parties az Mont Blanc dogs
above The mountains that surround 1t, aud
when such men as he come forth 10 cham
pion either side, the psople-Eho are only
anxious 10 do right when they know
what it is-may content themselves win the
assurance that the whole argument % the
side be espouses will be exhausted. Ii Is to
submit a candid bHt respectful review OF this
argument that ask place in your columns,
AT the threshold desire 10 say in this INTRO
ductory paper that Judge Wright, being
private citizen, is not public target Tor Inc
arrows of criticism upon this question
further than ha has voluntarily made him.
self so, upon the ihtrinsie I4efils of his argu-
meut. We.will not go out OF the way, thSre-
fore, to inquire where he stood personals, IN
years gone By upon this question, or what Is
his professional status now in relation TO this
quadrangular and very unequal Sight be-
tween the real State credit people OF Tenpes-
see on the one side and the bopdholders,
great corporations and Hawkins Republl-
cans on the other He had a right TO speak,
and he has done it with no uncertain sound,
and IN a manner that will very materially
stimulate investigation upon this momentous
ques' ion The writer Of this article Is
State-credit Democrat of the straitest sect.
When the hundred-and-three bill passed,
however, he opposed IL because he knew that
If this commonwealth were as rich as
the caverns of Aladdin, the Tree peo-
pie of Tennessee would never bow their
pecks to so gigantic a fraud, go long
as resistance could be justified By lay. He
opposed it because it was abhorrent TO the
methods and traditions of free govern
ment; because il usurped the organic right
of the legislative department to control and
direct lhs revenues as the exigencies OF the
State might demand! because it mortgsged
the homestead, the flocks and herds OF the
pe1ple, and destroyed their sovereignty for
ninety nine years; because 1t pandered TO
the avarice of the SPECTATOR upon the mis-
fortunes OF the people, and debauched the
public treasury into dirty pool Tor the
stock jobber and the gambler. He censured
no man for voting for it. He did not inn
pugn the motives OF any, and had no occa-
sion to invoke the maxim, that laWs, Ike
sausages inspire our respect or contempt In
nroportion as we know how they are made.
1t YVES no new doctrine, that, under our auto
nomy, this kind of legislation could not
stand the crucial test of Intelligent adludI-
cation He believed with the Supreme Colrt
OF the United States in Debolt ts. Oalo IN
surance Company, that the powers OF Sow
ereignty confded 10 the legislative body oil 4
State. are trust 70 be executed to the best
of their judgment for the public good, and
no one Legislature can, by It's own act, dlsarm
It's successors of any of the powers or rights
of sovereignty confided by the people. That
they cannot, By contract, deprive future
Legislature of the power OF imposing any
tax il may deem necessary for the public
service, or of exercising any other act Of
sovereignty unless expressly tRerennto
author zed by the constitution How, $685.
He believed with the same court, In Fletcher
u.s. Peck, that the correctness OF the prlnel-
pie can meyer be contreverted that one Leg
islature cannot ab-idge The powers of sue
ceeding Legislature 30 tar as respects ger-
eral legislation (Per Marshall, G. J., 6
Craucb, 1851 And with Mr.. Justice Miller,
in New Jersey rs. Yard, that one Legislature
has no power to bargain away the right OF
any succeeding Legislature 10 levy taxes IN
as full a manner as the constitution will ad-
nit. (95 United States Rep, 104.J Aud,
lastly, he believed with the pure and emf
nent Judge Battle, OF North Caroiins, who,
adopting Southey's maxim that words are
like sunbeams-the more they are condensed
the more they burn-compressed the whole
argument into half dozen words: "The
State cannot commit suicide" He is opposed
10 a forced adjustment of this debt even at
ninety-and-six, because it would dishonor
his people. He believes that the debt ought
to be settled ST scaling of ffty cents on the
dollar, with q graded Interest at Jour- Jour
and half and five per cent? and he be-
Iieves that it will ultimately be settled, with
the concurrence of the creditors, by fair and
honest negotiation at some figure nearly ap-
nominating that. and that it will be done
bv a Democratic administration OF the State
Oovarrment. When the sixty-and-six bill
was enacted into legislative tender, he
promptly advised the people, whenever the OPP
porlunlty offered, to acquiesce In 1t, ana mus
to nut the dangerous question out OF the way
Many of them had been educated 10 heileve
that the State did not owe dollar of the ,,
railroad debt; many others, that We did net |
owe more ian half of it-some say third, |
some a fourth. On the other hand, there |
we're some who believed we owed every dol |
lar of If. and some again who thought the |
debt would be fairly settled al sixty-and- |
three. All these had traveled ON diverging
lines until last winter, when it vas manifest |
that a healthy reaction was about to bring !
these conflicting opinions upon some media
ria. where all could stand together. Even
The accredited leader OF the anti-bond party
"a man who believes with the utmost sim
cerity that all these bonds are void foF want
of constitutional power to issue them-said
TO the writer of this article: Now, sir, alter
this one hundred-snd three is scotched and
killed will discuss with you the policy Of
proposing final settlement OF this debt at
forty-and-four, or 6f'y-znd-three, or sixty
and-three." Here was a sacrifice OF pride OF
opinion that inspired the hope, soon alter
realized. that the media ria was reached at
last: that the settlement would be negotiated
at ffly-and-four, or some other approximate
figure. and that the unanimity OF the Democ-
racy would make it q fnality. This hguie
had once been proposed by many OF the
creditofs-and nearly every Democratic pub \
lie man IN the State had approved IL
and mark the significant fact stated in
tbe report of Gov. Marks's Enjoys
N New York: THE bondholders, 10 |
sccanliue the proposition and that the con-