Newspaper Page Text
YOL. XXIII.—NO. 33.
The Cartcrsville Express,
Established Twenty Years,
BATES AXIS TEEMS.
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
One copy one year $1 50
One copy six months 75
One copy three mouths 50
I'aymentg invariably fu advance.
ADVJERTSIING RATES.
Advertisements will be inserted at the rates
ol One Dollar per inch lor the first insertion,
and Fifty Cents for each additional insertion.
Address S. A. CUNNINGHAM.
GOV. COLQUITT’S REPLY.
Atlanta, Ga., August 21, 1880. —
To the people of Georgia : I reply
through this letter to the speech ~ of
the Hon. Thomas Norwood, made in
the representative chamber of Atlan
ta criticizing my administration. I
adopt this medium beeauso it will be
impossible on account of official du
ties for me to accompany him over
the entire state and thus’meet these
charges face to face, as well as the an
nonymous charges circulated over
the country. I requested the privii
lego of dividing time with him. The
city was filled with posters that were
inviting the people to come out and
hear him “expose Colquittism,” and
I had therefore a direct personal in
terest in that issue. He declined to
allow me a hearing on the ground
that the meeting was one of ratifica
tion. A ratification meeting to “ex
pose Colquittism” seemed an ineon
gruity. It would have been my
pleasure to have corrected some of
the grave misstatements of Mr. Nor
wood in reference to myself, as well
as to have discussed some matters
connected with his own official rec
ord in which the people of Georgia
have an interest, in view of his pres
ent candidacy.
MY POSITION AND IIIS.
Mr. Norwood seems,to consider our
positions as precisely analogous, the
only difference being that I represent
an unorganized majority and he an
unorganized minority. I beg to call
the attention of the people' to the
fact that,iuy own candidacy was rec
ommended by the people in prima
ry assemblies in a large majority of
tiie counties of Georgia and by almost
two-thirds of the convention, while
Mr. Norwood’s candidacy was not
recommended in a primary assembly
in a single county of Georgia, but by
the eleven citizens who assembled
with him in a room in the Kimball
house, in Atlanta. The minority op
posed to me participated in the action
of the convention, remained in it to
the dose and acquiesced as fully as
any minority could. They did not
even enter a protest. They remained
taking part in its deliberations until
its adjournment. Of the 350 votes in
tlie convention 224i votes, within 9
votes of a two-thirds majority of the
convention, and representing, accord
ing to actual estimate under the cen
sus of 1870, a popular aggregate of
750,000 people against 400,000 repre
sented by the 1254 minority, consti
tuted my support. That large ma
jority reeommeded me as the demo
cratic candidate for governor. In
the vote upon this recommendation
the minority participated by voting
against it and continued taking part
in other important deliberations of
the body and thus to the last recog
nized the authority of the convention
and are bound by its action.
MR. NORWOOD’S POSITION.
What is Mr. Norwood’s position as
a candidate? After the adjournment
of the convention a meeting of citi
zens was called and he was placed in
the chair. lie stated in explaining
the object of the meeting that they
were a short time ago official dele
gates to a party convention, but they
had ceased to be so and were resolv
ed back into citizens. These citizens,
no longer a minority of the conven
tion, for as a minority they ceased to
exist with the end of the convention,
then appointed a committee of nine,
with Mr. Norwood himself as chair
man, to report action, and then ad
journed.
The nine gentlemen appointed by
Mr. Norwood as chairman, with two
others who seem to have joined them
during their two or three days’ ses
sion, nominated Mr. Norwood as
their candidate for governor.
It is a striking coincidence that
nino voters were lacking to give me
a two-thirds majority, and that these
nine gentlemen as delegates m the
convention could have secured that
party harmony, they so profess to
seek, by uniting with the majority
in making a nomination. And these
nine gentlemen, after thwarting a
nomination, have nominated their
own chairman as their candidate for
governor. The coincidence, I say,
of nine delegates defeating a two
thirds majority nomination, and the
same nine delegates, as citizens, pre
senting a candidate to the party in
opposition to the action of the con
vention, in which they took part and
had their voice and vote, presents
such a picture of premeditated party
disorganization as must strike every
reasonable man with amazement.
And not only this, but the small
number necessary to make a two
thirds majority on the one hand, and
on the other inaugurating revolt
against the party recommendation,
presents an impressive contrast to
true democrats everywhere. If a
great majority, representing nearly
two-thirds of the people and conven
tion, are eqalled in authority by a
stray committee of nine citizens, then
party obligation is at an end in Geor
gia. Mr. Norwood gravely argues
Hie remarkable proposition that the
minority was as much a majority to
nominate as the majority was. The
The Cartersville Express.
absurdity of such a proposition needs
no demonstration. The gentleman,
however, in his address, precisely
states his own position, and I accept
bis own words in designating his
candidacy. He says that Governor
Colquitt is “a self-appointed candi
date,” and then adds. “I stand in
the same position that he does.” I
cheerfully and fully accord to him
the absolute accuracy in his state
ment of his own attitude, and com
pliment him upon the frank and un
mistakable manner in which he ac
knowledges that he is “a self-ap
pointed candidate.”
A DISORGANIZED IX IIIS OWN
INTEREST.
There i3 no stronger and more
crushing objection to his claim for
votes than the simple and damaging
fact that he was the leader ot all the
disorganization action in the conven
tion, and is to-day its beneficiary,
lie engineered the mischief and
reaps its benefits. He is the author
and leader of the successful eftert to
defeat a two-thirds nomination at all
hazzards, and is running for govern
or on the disruption he made. He
cannot evade the irresistible conclu
sion from his own course that he was
a designing disorganizer in his own
interest and for the gratification of
his own ambition. In his speech he
announces that he “came into this
convention for the purpose of dis
charging a duty,” and he adds: from
now until tho going down of the sun
on the first Wednesday in October
I expect to raise my vice in vindica
tion of your rights that were tram
pled under foot.” This is Mr. Nor
wood’s figurative and fancitul meth
od of putting his determined purpose
to run for governor upon some sort
of nomination, although it might be
made by a committee appointed by
himself.
AIR. NORWOOD PREVENTS A
NOMINATION.
But there was a scene in the con
vention that may be properly men
tioned in this connection. In the
closing hour of the convention a del
egate from Harris county arose and
desired to change the four votes of
his county to me and, as was subse
quently ascertained, there were oth
ers ready to change. It was at this
moment, when the minority was dis
integrating and the convention had
the prospect of a nomination by a
two-thirds majority, that Mr. Nor
wood arose and opposed any change
of votes whatever and directly
sought to prevent, and in all proba
bility did prevent a nomination,
when it seemed certain. The signifi
cance of this attempt cannot be mis
understood. It shows clearly and in
disputably that lie a techni
cal objection to the privilege of dele
gates voting for Colquitt who were
patriotic enough to yield at the last
moment to the wishes of the majori
ty, and thus this “self appointed can
didate” for governor stands respon
sible for the failure of a nomination.
Does not his opposition to thechange
of votes at the close of the conven
tion form a striking proof that he
was a disorganizer in his own inter
est?
RET AI f;i SG S DANDERS.
In nothing has the speech of Air.
Norwood afforded room lor severer
criticism than in his comments upon
my administration. In commencing
his assaults he declares that he does
not say whether the charges he
makes are false or true.” And yet
scandals and slanders that he will
not state to be true, he retails at
length as a justification of his own
candidacy and against my fair name
and the integrity of my administra
tion.
TILE NORTHEASTERN RONDS.
I propose to take up some of these
matters and briefly discuss them,
giving the fac:s. There has not been
in the wide range of public discus
siou a measure that has received
more unfair criticism than the in
dorsement of the Northeastern rail
road bonds. It was a proper meas
ure, a politic measure, a legal meas
ure and an imperative duty inas
much as it involved the state’s sa
cred honor in relation to her own cit
izens. Air. Norwood himself distinct
ly states that he lias no charge of
wrong to make against mein connec
tion with that act, but that it has
caused unkind comment. If the act
is wrong it should be condemned.
If it Is right it should be sustained.
Unkind comment upon it does not
make it wrong. It is right or wrong
from its facts. Ignorance or malice
or self-interest can make unfavorable
comment about the best and noblest
actions; but actions must be judged
at last by their merits and not by
per.-onal views of them, as Mr. Nor
wood seems to argue.
What are the facts of this matter ?
The general assembly of the state
granted the Northeastern railroad
company the right to an indorsement
of its bonds upon certain conditions.
Other roads received the same grant.
A subsequent legislature repealed
the act, giving to these roads state
aid, except when the right had ves
ted. But the same general assembly
that repealed tho acts authorizing
state aid, made by resolution a spe
cial exception in the case of the
Northeastern railroad. The officers
of the road went forward and incurr
ed debts upon the plighted faith of
tho state. The decision in th 9 mat
ter of indorsement devolved upon
me after I came into office. I vent
ure to say that never, upon public
measure, has an executive delibera
ted more carefully, and I am frank
enough to say, reviewing my official
career, that no act of my adminis
tration has been a wiser or a better
one. The matter having been
brought before the supreme court
that tribunal held that the duty of
CARTERSVTLLE, GA., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1880.
deciding the question rested with the
executive. I then sought the opin
ions of the ablest lawyers and public
men of the state, such gentlemen as
General Toombs, Governor Brown,
General Lawton, Hon. A. O. Bacon,
Judge T. J. Simmons, president of
the senate. Hon. Henry McDaniel,
H°n. L. N. Trammell and others.
While these opinions in which I con
curred satisfied me that it was prop-
er to indorse, yet I preferred in abun
dant caution to delay acting, so as to
remit the matter to the general as
sembly. But the debts incurred up
on the faith of the state were pressed
to the point where the road must
have been sacrificed and great dam
age and loss be inflicted upon the cit
izens of Clarke county, who had in
vested their monev. It was in this
emergency, to redeem the state’s
fa.itli, to save the los3 of valuable
property, to protect a noble section of
our state from injury, and to enforce
a legal and undoubted right, that I
gave the indorsement. The general
assembly, after a full investigation of
the whole matter, declared my mo
tives pure and the act a proper one.
The validity and legality of the in
dorsement has never been questioned
by court or legislation.
THE W. & A. R. R. FEE.
Mr. Norwood makes allusion to
(he fee that Messrs Baugh, Garling
ton, Alston, Pain, Jackson, Lawton
and Basinger earned for the collec
tion of certain money from the Uni
ted States government on a claim
connected with the Western & At
lantic railroad. The whole fee is im
properly dubbed the Alston fee,
when all of the above gentlemen and
others were interested in it. Mr.
Norwood, who is a lawyer, should
be the last to pronounce this simple
matter a wrong. His very statement
of the case shows that in this, as in
other things, he has spoken without
a full examination of the matter.
What are the facts of this also re
markably misconceived transaction?
In 1868, Colonel Baugh, who, at the
close of the war was superintendent
of the State road, and his partner,
General Garlington, were employed
by the then governor to prosecute a
claim of several hundred thousand
dollars against the United States
government for the use of the State
road during and after the close of the
war. The contract was that these
lawyers should have a retainer of
$3,000 and a contingent fee of 121 per
cent commissions. The claim was
prosecuted. Colonel Pain, Colonel
Alston and others were engaged in
the prosecution. During Governor
Smith’s administration Messrs. Jack
son. Ijh winn anri Basins r er name into
the case as additional counsel, and
Governor Smith placed upon the ex
ecutive minutes an order recognizing
the employment of tho gentleman,
and increasing the compensation to
be allowed to a sum not to exceed 25
per cent, of the amount collected,
this not to interfere with the rights
of gentlemen already employed. I
found this state of things When I
tame into office—a long standing
contract of the highest official au
thority. The money was collected,
the agents doing the work were al
lowed their contracted lee and the
state’s part of the money was paid
into the treasury.
The only question in the case at all
was whether the agents were enti
tled to the full 25 per cent commis
sion. Whatever amount they were
entitled to was theirs immediately,
and could not go into the treasury.
They had a legal lien upon it. It
was theirs, earned under a legal con
tract, and tno withholding of one
dollar from them would have been a
violation of the faith of the state. It
is the law, well recognized in this
country, that lawyers who collect
moneys for others are first entitled to
their fees. The very act of collec
tion makes their fees their property.
All of these gentlemen concurred that
the contract was that they should
have the full 25 per cent and they all
shared in the distribution of that per
cent. They had been working on
the case ten years. Several had spent
session after session in Washington
under heavy expense. They had,
therefore, earned their fee and weie
entitled to the fruits of their con
tract.
The position of Mr. Norwood that
by law the whole amount should
have gone into the treasury is unten
able. There is no such law. The
law requires nothing to go into the
treasury but the money belonging to
the state. No law requires that the
25 per cent belonging to the attor
neys should be paid into tlie treasu
ry. On the contrary the law gives
attorneys a lien upon the money cols*
heed until their tees are paid. The
governor received a check payable
to his order, with the consent of the
attorneys which included the 25 per
cent belonging to them and the 75
per cent belonging to the state. And
in the discharge of a plain legal duty
he paid to the attorneys the amount
which belonged to them, and paid
into the treasury the amount which
belonged to the state.
The case was one of contract, not
made by me, for service to be ren
dered to the state for a compensation
agreed upon. The contract was pos
itive, the service undeniable. The
contract was for 25 per cent. The
service was the collection of the mon
ey. The money was collected, and I
had to carry out the contract in good
faith. I did this. To do otherwise
would have been a violation of law,
and a stigma on the state.
THE CONVICTS.
Mr. Norwood has much to say
about my administration of tho law
regulating the convicts. In this, as
in almost every ether matter to which
he makes reference, he shows ala-
mentable ignorence of both the law
and tiie facts, or else he wilfully ig
nores both. His method of treating
this subject Paves the impression on
the public mind that my administra
tion is responsible for the present
convict system and its past abuses.
A iiereas the present lease law was
passed before I became governor,
passed without any agency whatever
on my part, approved by Governor
Smith ; and every contract under it
vyas entered into between Governor
Smith and the leases before I came
into office. In discussing a report
made to the legislature, but which
wa3 never adopted by the legislature,
Mr. Norwood is rash enough to de
clare in the plainest words that “the
facts narrated in this report refer to
his (my) administration.” He makes
no exception, but proceeds to par
ticularize some of these “facts,” as
he terms them, with which he seeks
to justify his assaults upon myself
and my administration. He leaves
the impression on the public mind
that during my administration 523
convicts have escaped and are now
running at large, and that for every
one of these escapes a penalty ot S2OO
is due the state, not a dollar of which,
ho says, has been collected.
Such a misrepresentation of the
facts is simply monstrous. Mr. Nor
wood will scarcely be excused by the
public, when the real facts as given
in the official records are brought to
light as 1 shall bring them. I say
the misrepresentation is monstrous;
for so far from these 523 escapes hav
ing occurred during my adoaini na
tion, that number includes every con
vict that has e-caped prior to that
report for theJast fourteen years. The
official records show that one hun
dred and twenty-six have escaped
during my administration and one
hundred and eighty-seven during
Governor Smith’s administration and
the balance of the 523 escaped during
former administrations. So that Mr.
Norwood places himself before the
country in the uufortunate altitude
of having for political effect, crowded
the escapes for fourteen years in the
space of three and one-half 3$ years.
To state the case arithmetically, a-34
years are to fourteen years, so are Mr.
Norwood’s statements to the facts of
the official records.
But his misrepresentations in ref
erence to the S2OO penalty are still
more glaring and gross. The law
imposing S2OO fine for every convict
that escapes, went into effect by its
provisions on the first of April, 1879.
Prior to April of last year, no such
penalty was imposed by the
Since the law was of force, only (19)
.*' ~‘-TT * J ' The npnoitj
due has been paid by one company
without suit, and in every case is un
der investigation. The discrepency,
therefore, between Air. Norwood’s
statement and the truth of the case
is the difference between 523 and 19.
It will not do for Mr. Norwood to
say that he was reading from the Al
ston report, for he distinctly asserted
that the facts narrated in that report
referred to my administration,
whereas four-fifths of theae escapes
occurred in former administrations,
and only 19 out of tlie 523 were liable
to the penalty of S2OO. The only
comment I make upon such whole
sale misrepresentations is that they
place his entire speech under tlie ban
of a fair, popular judgement, as hav
ing been made under the impulse of
unjustifiable prejudice and not with
a view of bringing tho facts before
the country.
But Mr. Norwood seems to eon-,
sider it consistent with his candidacy
for tho high office of governor, to as
sume the utterly indefensible posi
tion that I am responsible for all tho
evils of the convict system, with the
inauguration of which 1 had no
agency whatever. lie seems to have
forgotten the important fact that
another executive and a former legis
lature are wholly responsible for the
lease act.
When I came into office the lease
law had already been passed by the
legislature, and approved by Gov
ernor Smith. The contracts under it
were made by Governor Smith. The
system I found loosely managed,
because of the character of the sys
tem itself and the deficiences of the
law. The convicts had been farmed
out in small squads over thestateand
the statutes were sadly imperfect. I
gave the matter close attention and
entered zealously unon the work of
Correcting abuses. Every step in the
dime; on of reform met my hearty
approval and encouragement. There
has been a most gratifying and mark
ed improvement in the health and
comfort of this unfortunate class of
our fellow men, as is shown by the
following official tables. The report
upon which Mr. Norwood based his
assault upon myself aud my admin
istration was never agreed to by the
committee of the legislature. The
statements it contained are denied by
sub-committees who examined the
camps. The report itself was re
commended to the committee and
was never again reported. In ans
wer, however, to Mr. Norwood’s un
supported charge that during my
administration an unusual death rate
has occurred in the camps, I am con
tent to produce the official reports
and their undisputed and indisputa
ble records. I take Governor Smith’s
and my administration.
The official records show the death
rate from 1874 to 1879, inclusive, to
be as follows :
SMITH’S ADMINISTRATION.
Year. | No convicts. | No deaths. | Death rate.
1874 S 599 I 40 | 4 K per ct.
1875 | 926 | 49 | sper ct.
1876 | 1316 | 53 | 4X per ct.
COLQUITT’S ADMINISTRATION.
Year. | No convicts. | No deaths. | Death rate.
1877 | 1443 | 55 / 3>£ per ct.
IS7S | 1417 | 27 | iy% per ct.
1879 | _ 1400 33 |2 \j per ct.
These tables include the whole
number whose names were on the
books during tho year and not the
number on hand at any one time.
I have taken the last throe years of
Governor Smith’s administration and
the three completed years of mine, in
the above statement.
These official reports show that the
highest death rate was about 5 1-3 per
cent, and this occurred in 1875 during
Governor Smith’s administration.
The lowest death rate was about l£
per cent, and this occurred in 1878,
during my administration. These
records show that the highest death
rate during ray administration was
in the year 1877, immediately after I
came into office and before any great
reforms could be carried into practi
cal operation ; but they also show the
fact most damaging to Air. Nor
wood’s reputation for fair dealing
that the highest death rate during
my administration is lower than the
lowest death rate of the former ad
ministration. They further show
that the death rate has decreased al
most one-half during my administra
tion as compared with the adminis
tration which preceded it. A like
investigation will show that the
escapes have decreased in almost the
same ratio.
I make public these facts from the
official records not for the purpose of
criticßing any former administra
tion, but in order to show to every
man in Georgia the gross wrong
which my opponent seeks to do
mine.
I had no power to annul the lease
law, nor to break the contracts which
my predecessor had made and which
are binding for twenty (20) years.
The people, however, will judge
from the above official facts where
responsibility lies and whether Mr.
Norwood’s assault upon my charac
ter and administration is righteous
or ruthless. Wheae errors so astound
ing and misrpentations so flagrant
are made by one who could have ex
amined the records, and whose char
acter and the office he seeks ought to
forbid the idea of malice, it is easy to
imagine the reckless and audacious
manner in which irresponsible per
sons have calumniated both my ad
ministration and myself before the
people of Georgia. And Mr. Nor
wood need not be surprised if a just
minded public recoil from such meth
ods to injure an opponent.
SEN A r rcv l - u.onw\r a NTT) GOVERNOR
SM IT 11,
Mr. Norwood descends to make an
unworthy attack upon the motive
which actuated me in the appoint*
ment of Governor Brown as senator,
and Governor Smith as railroad com
missioner. He does not question the
propriety of either appointment.
He considers both gentlemen aole
and proper representativs of the peo
ple in the position to which they are
appointed; but the motive which
actuated me he prefesses to read and
proceeds to condemn. He can see in
my appointment of the fittest men to
office nothing higher, nor more com
mendable than self-seeking. He
charges directly that my motive was
to perpetuate myself in oflice. A
friend or a fair-minded foe might
have been able to find in the selection
for office of the oblest men, who were
not special personal or political
friends, something of a disre
gard of selfish considerations
for the public good. Mr. Norwood,
however, arrogating to himself a
power to search hearts and read mo
tives, which hitherto has been sup
posed to belong to Deity alone, does
not hesitate to declare that my ac
tions were prompted by the most sel
fish considerations. He then pro
ceeds to lecture me before the coun
try for my lack of patriotism and
official integrity. If I were permit
ted to judge of my own motives I
might flatly deny the truth of Mr.
Norwood’s statement. I might,with
some propriety, ask with liandolph,
“who imtde you a judge of motives
and a searcher of hearts.” I might
ask in what way he has acquired the
right to become the censor over my
actions and the power to judge of
my motives when he cannot condemn
my acts. Has he this right and pow
er" because of anything remarkable
in his past career? What is there in
his record that so exalts and digni
fies? Is it his unparalleled patriot
ism exhibited in the past? Did he
demonstrate his self sacrificing devo
tion to his country in baltie from 1861
to 1865? Did he refuse to vote him
self £5,000 of back salary after he had
given his receipt to the government
for payment in full, and did he un
selfishly refuse to accept that $5,000
of back pay? Did he unselfishly
give his time and talents to save the
people of Georgia from the payment
of the fraudulent bonds, or did he
take a fee to induce the legislature to
impose the fraudulent bonds upon
the people? Are these acts of self
abnegation and of patriotism which
have given to Mr. Norwood the right
to call in question my patriotism or
to sit in judgment upon my motives?
I leave it to the voters of Georgia to
judge between us.
TIIE JONES SETTLEMENT.
Mr. Norwood thinks that in allow
ing one of the securities of ex-treas
urer John Jones, Mr. John T. Grant,
to compromise his liability by a cash
payment of $35,000 into the state
treasury, I committed a grave viola
tion of official doty. These suits
were instituted in Governor Smith’s
time by Hon. N. J. Hammond, then
attorney-general of the state, and
Governor Smith employed to assist
S. A. CUNNINGHAM.
him General Robert Toombs, Messrs.
MoCay & Tripne, Colonel Willis A.
Hawkins and Mr. Wm. T. Nevnan.
All of these distinguished and expe
rienced lawyers representing the
state joined in advising me to accept
the $35,000. They constituted an un
usually strong array of counsel for
the state, and as they were thorough
ly acquainted with the case and gen
tlemen whose high character gave
absolute guarantee that they would
only avise for the best interest of the
state, I unhesitatingly acted upon
their unanimous recommendation to
release Mr Grant upon his payment
of the $35,000. I may state that the
fact that Mr. Grant was able to prove
that the bond he signed was intended
to be only temporary, but under the
technical rules of the law was not
allowed to make proof, constitutes
this a case of such doubtful equity
that this compromise has been deem
ed a fair one by all right-minded men
acquainted with the facts.
1 append the letter of Mr. Grant
and the indorsements of the attor
neys, for the informaiion of the peo
pie, as to the basis of my action.
STATE FINANCES AND TAXATION.
Mr. Norwood makes the point that
I have violated the law by levying
excessive taxes. He says, ‘‘there was
an act passed in 1873 which required
the raising of SIOO,OOO per annum to
pay the interest upon certain bonds
called the Nutting bonds,” and that
I levied one-tenth of one per cent,
for that purpose. Mr. Norwood,
either ignorantly or willfully, mis
states the law. There is no such
statute. There is a statute of 1873
which required the raising of SIOO,-
000 in excess of the amount otherwise
authorized to be collected, for the
payment, not of the interest on the
Nutting bonds, but for the paymdht
annually of the sum of SIOO,OOO of the
principle of said bonds. The interest
on these bouds is part of the interest
on the public debt, and is embraced
in the general provision made for the
payment of interest on the public
debt.
Under this statute my predecessor
for the three years prior to the com
mencement of my administration,
em Gracing every year since the bonds
were issued, raised one-tenth of one
per cent in addition to the general
levy to meet the annual payment of
the principal of the Nutting bonds
required by the statute. I continued
this same assessment during the
years 1577 and 1878, but finding that
it raised more money than was nec
essary for the purpose above men
tioned, 1 reduced it and ordered ail
assessment of one-half of one-tenth
of nnn j\nr* ri>nt k fnr tne years 1879 and
1880. No portion of the money col
lected as aforesaid was misapplied
but it went to the payment ol the
public expences and the reduction of
the public debt.
And in this connection Mr. Nor
wood makes another statement which
shows his reckless disregard of facts,
or his reluctance to conduct such in
vestigations as are necessary to arrive
at a knowledge of the truth. He
says: “But for the Nutting bonds,
four-tenths would have been ample
to have raised all the money needed
by the state, and in fixing this rate
one-half of one mill would have been
ample to have raised the money to
pay the interest on those bonds.
Therefore, instead of fixing the rate
at one half of one per cent, he should
have fixed it at four and
tenths per cent.”
Here again Mr. Norwood falls into
the error of confounding the princi
pal with the interest, when bespeaks
of the amount ‘to be raised on the
Nutting bonds. Now, it Mr. Nor
wood had given himself the trouble
to have ascertained the facts, and had
been willing to do me and my ad
ministration justice, he would have
informed his audience that instead of
collecting lour and oue-half tenths of
one per cent, I am only collecting
three and one-half tenths of one per
cent to meet all the current expences
of the government, pay the interest
on the whole public debt and to pay
SIOO,OOO annually of the principal of
the Nutting bonds. But it seem3 this
was a fact that did not suit h s pur
pose and he was careful to withhold
it from the public.
Mr Norwood’s purpose seems to
have been to create the impression
upon the public mind that my ad
ministration has been an oppressive
one and that I have collected from
the people unnecessary taxes. What
are the facts ? I compare the year
1876, the last year of my predeces
sor’s administration, and 1879, the
last completed year of my own. In
1879, as shown by the comptroller’s
report of that year, the value of the
taxable property of the state was
$245,853,750. On this a tax of 5-10 of
one per cent was levied, which raised
$1,229,263. In 1879, under my ad
ministration, the whole value of the
taxable property was $225,093,419.
On this a tax of 35 100 of one per cent
was levied which raised $788,826,
making $440,442 less raised in 1879 by
general luxation by my administra
tion than in 1876 under my prede
cessor’s administration. The public
debt in 1876 was $11,095,879. In 1880
it nas been reduced to $9,871,500, the
reduction being the large sum of
$1,224,397.
There ha3 been paid into the state
treasury money from sources to the
amount of nearly half a million of
dollars, thus relieving the burdens of
taxation. Of this amount a large
sum was collected from the United
States government. There has been
very much said about the fees paid
but very little about the public ben
efit in securing such large and unex
pected sums for the State, easing the
tiuan iul burdeus of the people.
In conclusion, fellow citizens,.! call