The Democratic Legislature of 1879, a body of strong men, took hold of the question vigorously.

The Democratic party has been dominant in Tennessee from 1870 until the present time, except in 1881 and 1882, when it suffered a temporary loss of power on account of division on the debt question.

One of the first legislative utterances after its return to power in 1870 was a declaration of its purpose to maintain the credit of the State.16

The platforms of 1876 and 1878 declared for the maintenance of the State's credit and avowed opposition to repudiation, and these utterances were made in good faith. The platform of 1878 was mainly the work of Judge Marks, who in that year was elected Governor. In his first message Governor Marks took strong ground in favor of a careful investigation of the State debt, and of an adjustment upon a basis of equity to the State as well as to the bond holders. Among other things he said: "As to that part of the debt embracing the post war bonds, no part of it should be settled now, or hereafter, only in so far as the bonds were issued, sold and used, in conformity to law." 17

It was at the session of the Legislature to which this message was delivered, that the committee of investigation was appointed, and made the report which has been referred to. The leading men of the committee were Judge S. F. Wilson, and

16 Acts of Tennessee, 1869-70, Resolution XI.

17 Senate Appendix, 1879, Governor Marks' Message, page 15.

Judge David L. Snodgrass, both of whom afterward rose to high places in the State. A majority and a minority report were submitted. Messrs. Wilson and Snodgrass were with the majority, whose report was strongly adverse to the validity of the railroad and war interest debt, and was a forceful presentation of the view of the question which finally was accepted by the party. But as yet the dominant sentiment among the Democrats favored a settlement by agreement with the bondholders. There were many in the party who would have advocated the payment of the debt in full, in preference to a forced settlement, but no one, probably, denied the existence of strong equities against a great part of it. Gradually, however, there had grown up a party within the party which held that the State was the best judge of its own rights and should pay so much of the debt as had been created in compliance with the law, and no more, and that the railroad bonds, especially the later ones, and the war interest bonds had not been so issued as to be binding on the State. The platform of 1878 had declared against repudiation and in favor of equitable adjustment, subject to the ratification of the people at an election. In pursuance of this declaration, the Legislature of 1879 passed an Act for the settlement of the debt, principal and accrued interest, at fifty cents on the dollar, and four per cent interest, and directed that an election be held for the ratification or rejection of the plan. The elec

tion was held August 7, 1879, and the vote was against the settlement. The fight against the bonds was resumed with increased vigor. It was urged that the railroad bonds were against the letter and the spirit of the constitution of the United States: that they were unauthorized by the State Constitution: that the Legislature having no power to issue bonds could not ratify their issuance, or do any act to estop the State; that many of the bonds had been issued in violation of the statutes authorizing them; that the passage of certain statutes authorizing bonds had been secured by fraudulent means; that the State had been under duress, in 1869, to forego the investigation and rejection of the post bellum bonds, and that the demand for war interest was both unprecedented and unconscionable. These and many other arguments were urged with force and effect.

The situation within the Democratic party was unique and interesting. When the debt question was first agitated, and indeed until 1882, the more prominent leaders, as a rule, belonged to the high tax or State credit wing, and not a few of them remained firm to the end.

Andrew Johnson, as a member of the Legislature, had opposed the public improvement acts, and in speeches made in 1874 he declared that the issuance of the bonds had been unconstitutional, that frauds had been practiced in selling them, that many of them were held by persons who had paid from thirty to

fifty cents on the dollar for them, and were entitled to interest only in proportion to their investment.18

He is reported to have said that no generation has the right to incur debts extending to another generation,19 but nothing has been found to show that he advocated the repudiation of any part of the debt.

Many of the leaders were in Congress and necessarily absent much of the time from the State, and many of those who were at home failed to apprehend the trend of affairs or to exert themselves in behalf of their opinions. There was in Tennessee at this time a singular man of remarkable abilities and of invincible tenacity, who for years had been the incessant and bitter antagonist of the bonds, missing no opportunity to declare them iniquitous. The State credit men, unfortunately for themselves, underestimated both his ability and his influence, and allowed him to have the field practically to himself. This was John H. Savage, to whom more than to any other man, perhaps more than to all other political leaders combined, the result of the debt question in Tennessee is to be attributed. He began the fight almost alone, when the word "repudiation" was shocking to the people, and abhorrent to the politicians, and was freely applied to every suggestion of curtailing the debt. He was sneered at and abused, but with unsurpassed persistency and courage, he

18 Memphis Avalanche, October 11, 1874.

19 Memphis Avalanche, September 22, 1874.

maintained his position and gradually his arguments found lodgment in the public mind. In the beginning he stood almost alone, in the end he triumphed, but received no personal benefits.

James D. Porter, Governor from 1875 to 1879 was the consistent, firm, and able champion of the opposing policy.

In the final struggle, the leaders of the low tax party were, Wm. B. Bate, D. L. Snodgrass, S. F. Wilson, and John H. Savage, who at the last received valuable support from Senator Isham G. Harris. Opposed to these were James D. Porter, Howell E. Jackson, James E. Bailey, Horace H. Lurton, J. M. Dickinson, Luke E. Wright, and others.

The Democratic convention of 1880 met under circumstances that promised and produced the disruption of the party. The platform adopted favored a prompt settlement of the debt upon the best terms that could be secured by negotiation with the creditors. This was unsatisfactory to the low tax men, who left the convention and adopted a platform of their own, favoring the adjustment and speedy payment of the State debt proper, denying the validity of all railroad bonds, and demanding that the payment of them be left for settlement by the courts in controversy between the railroads and the bondholders; and denying also the validity of the war interest bonds. It declared that no settlement should be made which had not first been submitted to the people.