Year: 1879

HURRICANE SPRINGS, July 10, 1879


To Nathaniel Baxter, jr., Chairman
y You ask me, in f1attering terms, to give
my views to the public, on the pending
/. issue before the people on the subject


of the State debt This, have recent


ly done. But it may not be amiss to


say something more on the question


The serious consequences involved in


the result makes it admissible to add


cline upon line and precept upon pre-


cept." The people who are to decide


the issue, for veal or for woe, doubtless


all that can be said on both sides. They


always destre to do right. Such is the


theory of our government, which makes


the people the source of all power. They


are the sovereigns and know no superb


ors. They have no interest to do wrong.


1t is their own government, and they


nave control of its destinies for good or


for evil. They generally act by repre-


sentatives, and this distinguishes our


system from pure democracy. In this





not be said that this was done against


their will. All will remember that they


required it to be inserted in their Con-


stitution in 1884 that the Legislature


should foster and encourage judicious


system of internal improvements, and it


will not be forgotten by any that the


people with unusual unanimity, from


that time forward, required their repre-


sentatives to issue bonds to raise money


to carry out this scheme. Now, there


are some, as strange as it may seem, who


insist that we should go back on our
| selves, after having received and used !
| the money loaned US, and refuse to pay |
! the obligations. All will agree that an |
individual could not do this without !
disgrace. If not, can State, made up .
of the people, do so without still greater


disgrace? The State should set the ex-


ample of the strictest honesty and good


faith to the people. 1t has provided


courts to compel every citizen to comply


with his contracts, and even in the Con-
stitution forbidden the "obligation of
contracts to be impaired" by any power
or authority. But a State cannot be
sued That prohibition is upon the pre-
sumption that a State would do right
without, and the implied imputatiOn
that it would ever be necessary to COM
pei a sovereign State to comply with its
obligation by the courts could net be
entertained. 1t was considered to pro-
vide any means to coerce a State would
be reflection on its honor. This high
confidence should dictate a more scru-
pulous compliance with its engagements
and duty rather than be used as a shield
to resist just demands. Upon what
grounds, consistent with honesty, can ,
we resist the payment of the bonds now ;
outstanding against us9 They bear the
great seal OF our great State. They were =,
issued by the proper authority under the -,
dictation of the people. They were
sent into the market to raise money, and
pledged for the prompt payment of the
interest and their ultimate redemption.
But it is said that our means of payment
and sources of revenue have been so
diminished by the abolition of the +
slaves and otherwise by the war, that ;
we ought not to pay. Upon what prin-
ciple that should exonerate us, I am not
able to see. That is our misfortune,
but surely upon no principle can it af- /
feet the obligation of the debtor. He I
takes all the chances of this kind, un- :
less they are provided against in the
contract. The law as it is well settled
in the courts, is conclusive on this ques-
ton. On it there is No conflict.


If man buys house, and it is burn I
ed down next day, this is no defense to (
the notes given for the price. So it
would be no defense to a debt contract
ed for the rent. Slaves were sold on
credit, and before the notes for the price c
fell due they were emancipated. The 4
courts nevertheless held that the obliga- i
ion was not affected thereby, but that
she full price must be paid. But the
Defense would be stronger in that case
han the one under consideration. In =
hat the consideration was entirely lost C
By the results of the war, but in this,
he benefit of the consideration still re- 4
mains in railroads and improvements of 4
he country. If this be good defense
t should be equally so in case of indi-
RITUALS, if the debtor should, by any
unforeseen cause, lose a portion of his v
whereby his ability to pay n
would be diminished. q


Would not the same principle exoner- +
tie the borrower of money to buy goods Z
IF cotton, or for any speculation, in the :
went his adventure turned out to be l
or by some unexpected oc- e
,urence his means of payment had been
diminished? All would say, and the
aw declare, that this was the risk of +
he borrower, and could not affect the e
to pay in the least.


In every view the question would :,
eem too plain for controversy. The n
courts would not hear it debated, nor .
would lawyer risk his character to 9
make such point in defense. Suppose L
t had been stipulated in the bonds that Il
n the event any disaster befel the State :
it's revenues should be reduced,
t should destroy the obligation to pay, =
would any one have loaned his money I
lpon themP And these propositions o
would seem to be too clear for argu- O
nent, yet the objectors have no strong p
r grounds to stand upon. The truth =
5, as hard as it issup6nhsin our chang =
d condition, to meet So large a debt, /
here is no escape but in dishonor. 1t G
las been said that by the war the South o
ost all but honor, and if we now so act a
8 10 lose that, we shall be poor indeed. r.