The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1891-07-07

Subsequent to the election the dissatis-
IdcIlOn became more and more intense.
many seeing the errorof their vote. and
the scheme lay dormant until the win
ter of 1889, when a petition was pre-
sented to the legislature by the bro
motors OF the railroad for an amend
ment to the charter, which was granted.
(See laws 1889, chapter $50 allowing
the commissioners of Hartford county.
or making it their duty, upon the appii-
cation OF fifty taxpayers, to call an
election in MurfreeSbOrO township to
see whether or not the voters would
have said bonds applied as originally
intended, or transferred to the con
struction of a railroad from Murfrees-
bOrO to some point on the n. & @. r.
r., which would have passed through
the township and been wholly in our
county. And whereas, we, with many
nor OF u tOwnshipmen, did, on the
first Monday in November, 1890, duly
file u petition, under provisions of
said amendment, before our board of
county commissioners for an election.
which petition was refused us, through
the advice of the counsel of the board,
who was also president of the proposed
railroad.
Again on the first Monday in Decem-
Der, 1890, we renewed our petition,
which was postponed at the earnest
solicitation of said counsel of the COM
missiOners, president, etc, of the rail
road, upon the plea that he had con-
suited eminent counsel on the law, and
promised to lay before the board at it's
next meeting their opinions, whether
favorable or adverse to his own.
We, too, in the meantime, consulted
truly eminent counsel, men of State
wide reputation, more than one of
whom had worn, and worthily, too, the
ermine and laid it aside, unStained and
uncOntaminated by any doubtful pro-
ceeding on their parts, all of whom
cOncurred in the opinion that the COM
miSSiOnerS were compelled to call an
election whenever fifty taxpayers ap-
piled for it.
But 10! when we awaited on the first
Monday in June, 1891, for the de-
cisiOn Of the board, what was Our con-
sternation at being confronted by an
injunction fresh from the hand of
our(O learned judges, restraining the
commissioners from granting us an
election thereby sitting the voice of
a greatly wrOnged people.
We cannot see how the election could
have materially injured anyone, even
admitting that the bonds would have
been transferred (Of which there is
scarcely a shadow of a dOubt,) since
there was no contract signed until
some time in December, 1890, a month
after our first petition for an election,
and not a shOvevel of dirt was moved
in the construction of said railroad
until January, 1891, plainly showing
machine work" and that the will of
the toiling masses has been rudely set
aside, and the will of the favored
classes has obtained. We confess our
O~btuseness at not being able to discern
how the law of 1889, chapter 557, re-
vived or resuscitated the bonds which
seemed to us to have expired March
9TH, 1890, unless the railroad had been
commenced prior to thattime, and was
unconstitutional when sought to be
applied for the relief of the oppressed
masses. Under such circumstances, we
would ask what becomes of the old and
time-hOnOred doctrine of Democracy
for a full, free and untrammeled
expression of the popular will
when two of our @ Superior Court
Judges, and all of our CD Supreme
Court Judges, can sustain aninjunction
to prohibit the commissioners of our
county ordering an election, in order
to ascertain the true verdict of the
voters in Our township in regard to the
MurfreesbOrO Railroad bonds? Such
an injunction, when upheld by the
courts, throttles the voter, abolishes
the franchise, and directly nullifies the
sovereignty of the people.
The position of said Judges on said
bond question indicates that there can
be such legerdemain in a republic, as
a manipulation in the interest of the
classes as opposed to the masses. Have
they forgotten the rebuke given last
fall $500 by a indignant, Independent
people, to the arbitrary and undemo-
cratic legislation in our last COngress2
Let said judges, therefore file an
open answer before another convention
Of the pure J~effersOnian Democracy in
State shall have been called, and
vindicate, if they can, the extra
judicial" position taken Oh said bond
question, remembering that equal
rights to all, exclusive. privileges to
none" is the JeffersOnian rule.
Of a verify, these are wonderful
days IN the history Of law, when it's ex-
Founders themselves have turned about
to cast ridicule on it, and upon true
AmerIcanlsm, whose bulwark of safety
still fingers In the bosom of the brave
and unfinching yeomanry of our land.
Thrice armed is he who hath his quarrel JUST
Therefore be it
ResOIUed, That the above expresses
our sentiments and feelings, and that
we request our State Organ, The Pro
GREssIvE FARMER, to publish the same.
j. d. GATLTNG, Pres't.
O. PARKER, Sec'y.
ALLIANCE LECTURERS