Year: 1876

the part of some of the more ardeni


advocates of State credit TO arraigr


Gov. Porter as an enemy OF honest
policies. and a foe to honest pay


ment of the State debt. We pro


pose briefly to consider the question


candidly both in regard to the inter


est involved and as to the Governor


himself. There are three grounds
alleged as reasons why Gov. Porter
should not be entrusted with sub.
sequent administration of State af-
fairs.


1. That he did not sustain the
previous administration in his can
| vass.


2. That he has not so administer
ed the finances of the State as to
meet the interest due.


3. That he has written q letter
recommending the scaling of the
State debt.


AS TO the first. Gov. Porter was
not bound to defend previous ad-
ministration nor to go beyond the
platform. and we say SO. although
we have been ready at all times, in
the main. 10 defend it. and cannot
now recall more than one recommen-
dation carried into effect, with
which we dffered-the fatal recon-
mendation of q reduction Of the rate
! of taxation from 60 to 40 cents.
There were hundreds Of good
Democrats, who supported the State
platform, with it's enunciation of an
honest policy. who were not sup
porters of the previous administra-
tion. There were hundreds who
voted against Gov. Brown in 1872,
or who refused 20 vote, who were
supporters of the platform of 1874.
Under these circumstances Gov.
Porter wisely refused Mr.. Maynard
chance to make party capital and
consolidate his party and acquire
new strength by revivihg the pre-
judices of 1872. lie wisely secured
an unprecedented majority upon
other and more general Democratic
issues while he stood squarely upon
the platform upon which he was
nominated. This course left the
dead issue of funding out of the
question. The funding was done,
good men opposed it. good men adj
vocated it, each with an equally
honest intent. The naked question
of honest payment was left. There
can he but one honest view Of that,
but it would have been suicide to
have complicated it with the other.
To the second objection there is an
easy reply. Gov. Porter is blamed
for not doing what no man could
have done. The Legislature sus-
pended the collection of taxes, ruin
ously. disastrouslv. and yet in obe-
dience to a popular demand. from
which there was no protest. There
are enough to condemn it now and
yet there were none wise enough
and at the same time bold enough
to condemn the policy at the time.
The panic of 1873 was not more a
panic than the belief in the utterly
ruined condition of Tennessee, with
impending bankruptcy and starva
tion which led to the suspension of
taxes.


That Governor Porter did not
borrow money in New York was
well enough. lie had no means by
which he could effect such an ar
rangenent honestly and legally.
The Governor had no power to issue
bonds as collateral. bonds belonging
to the school fund could not be le-
gally used. The States available
assets were already in the hands of
bankers as collateral, to secure
money borrowed by the previous adj
ministration to pay interest. We
are confident that Gov. Porter made
al honest effort and failed to bor-
row and it is not strange when the
Legislature had suspended collec-
tions and narrowly avoided 20 cent
tax. We are equally as confident
that the best policy for the State is
to pay as she goes and to pay as
she can and never to borrow from
Peter to pay Paul. except when the
loan 10 to be of very brief duration,
with a certainty of payment. The
debtor who borrows to pay is ruin
ed and his fall is a matter of mathe-
NAUTICAL demonstration. The truth
is Gov. Porter found himself in Of
fee, crippled by a large floating
debt which has since been paid
amounting to about 100000, bor-
rowed to pay the interest under the
previous administration, found him.
self with Legislature, which could
not be relied on. which was barely
prevented from reducing the tax to
20 cents, and just escaped repudia-
tion. There was no store of wis
dom there to rely on, he could do
nothing as the Executive. In the
absence of discussion, the popular
clamor had gone further towards
the most dangerous financial views
and the people really believed
themselves ruined by State tax. and
State debt. This fallacious, and ut
terly untenable idea, nnexposed
would have been uncomfortable.
To have called the Legislature would
have been madness. Instead of i'm
proving in its morals it would have
been infinitely worse than before.


AS TO the third ground we differ
ed with Gov. Porter as to the views
contained in his letter. To issue
bonds as Gov. Porter recommended,
at lower rate of interest than they
now bear, is OF course perfectly
fair and honorable proposition,
whether it come from the State or
the creditor. Great Britain has pur-
sued the same policy several times
the United States debt is even now
being adjusted upon lower rate of
interest Gov. Porter said in his
letter what is truth. that there is an