784 



TENNESSEE. 



6. That we demand a graduated tax on all incomes 

 above one thousand dollars a year. 



7. We demand the establishment of a labor bureau 

 for the purpose of obtaining reliable statistics to 

 form a basis for intelligent legislation on labor ques- 

 tions. 



8. We demand a thorough system of public-school 

 education ; that the Legislature prescribe the text- 

 books to be used in the schools, prohibit repeated 

 changes in the same, and prevent the monopoly in 

 the sale of school-books. 



9. We demand the abolition of the system of let- 

 ting, by contract, the convicts in our prisons, and the 

 bringing them in competition with honest and skilled 

 labor. 



10. We are utterly opposed to the importation of 

 servile Chinese labor to come into competition with 

 the free labor of the country. 



11. Equal taxation of all property owned by indi- 

 viduals or corporations. 



12. An equitable and efficient lien law, which will 

 secure the wages of the laborer and mechanic with- 

 out delay or excessive cost. 



13. We demand honesty and economy in the ad- 

 ministration of public affairs, and prompt and severe 

 punishment for malfeasance in office. 



14. We deprecate and denounce all violent mea- 

 sures, and appeal only to the good sense, love of jus- 

 tice, and patriotism of the people, invoking them to 

 redress their wrongs only through the ballot-box. 



15. We demand a reduction of offices, of official 

 salaries, of taxation, and economy in all goverment- 

 al expenses, whether municipal, county, State, or 

 national. 



16. We recognize our State debt and favor its pay- 

 ment or adjustment and compromise aa soon as the 

 people have the ability to pay, and we believe this 

 ability will be secured under the policy of the Na- 

 tional Greenback party by the revival of trade, the 

 employment of labor, skilled and unskilled, and the 

 appreciation of property and restoration of finan- 

 cial, commercial, mechanical, and agricultural pros- 

 perity. 



17. In the present distress of the people of Ten- 

 nessee we favor low taxes, and also favor a stay of 

 the sale of properly on executions, until substantial 

 relief is secured to the productive industries of the 

 State. 



The election resulted in the success of the 

 Democratic party, 89,018 votes being cast for 

 Mr. Marks, the Democratic candidate for Gov- 

 ernor, 42,328 for Mr. Etheridge, Eepublican, 

 and 15,196 for Mr. Edwards, National. The 

 following members of Congress were elected : 

 R. L. Taylor, L. C. Houk, George 0. Dibrell, 

 Benton McMillan, John M. Bright, John F. 

 House, Washington 0. Whitthorne, John D. 

 1 Atkins, C. D. Simonton, and Casey Young. 

 The only Republican in the list is Mr. Houk. 

 At an election held on August 5th the follow- 

 ing Judges of the Supreme Court were chosen 

 for six years : State at large, James W. Dead- 

 erick and Peter Turney; Eastern Division, 

 Robert McFarland; Middle Division, William 

 F. Cooper ; Western Division, Thomas J. Free- 

 man. 



Albert S. Marks, the newly elected Gov- 

 ernor, was born on Greene River, in Daviess 

 County, Ky., in 1836. When about nineteen 

 years old he removed to Winchester, Tenn., 

 where he was admitted to the bar in 1858. 

 When the war began he entered the Confeder- 

 ate service as captain of the Seventeenth Ten- 

 nessee Infantry, of which he afterward became 



colonel. In the battle of Murfreesboro he lost a 

 leg. After the war he resumed the practice of 

 law. In 1870 he was elected Chancellor. He 

 was reflected to this office, and was discharg- 

 ing its duties when he was chosen as the Dem- 

 ocratic candidate for Governor. 



An important decision relating to the legal 

 status of Tennessee as well as other Southern 

 States during the war was rendered in the latter 

 part of the year by the Supreme Court of the 

 United States, in a case brought by John T. 

 Keith against the collector of taxes in Madison 

 County, Tennessee. The plaintiff had offered 

 in payment of taxes $40 in notes of the Bank 

 of Tennessee, which were refused by the de- 

 fendant. The former thereupon paid the amount 

 in lawful money, under protest, and afterward 

 sued for the recovery of the sum. The suit 

 was based on the 12th section of the charter 

 of the bank granted by the Legislature in 1838. 

 This enacts that k ' the bills or notes of said cor- 

 poration originally made payable, or which 

 shall have become payable on demand in gold 

 or silver coin, shall be receivable at the Trea- 

 sury of this State, and by all tax-collectors and 

 other public officers in all payments for taxes 

 or other moneys due the State." It was proved 

 that the bills were issued subsequent to May 

 6, 1861, and were known as the a Torbett or 

 new issue," and were worth in the brokers' 

 market about twenty-five cents on the dollar. 

 The Court charged the jury that if the notes 

 tendered were issued subsequent to May 6, 

 1861, and during the existence of the State 

 government established at that date in hostility 

 to the Government of the United States, then 

 the defendant was not legally bound to receive 

 them in payment of taxes. The reason given 

 for this was that, while the Constitution of the 

 United States protected the contract expressed 

 in the section of the bank charter above cited 

 from repudiation by State legislation as to notes 

 issued prior to the act of secession of May 6, 

 1861, it conferred no such protection as to 

 notes issued while the State was an insurrec- 

 tionary government ; and that consequently the 

 provisions of section 6 of the schedule to the 

 State constitutional amendment of 1865, which 

 declared that all the notes of the bank issued 

 after the date above mentioned were null and 

 void, and forbade any Legislature to pass laws 

 for their redemption, was a valid exercise of 

 State authority. Under these instructions the 

 jury found a verdict in favor cf the defendant. 

 The judgment rendered on this verdict was 

 affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. 

 The case was appealed to the Supreme Court 

 of the United States, which reversed the deci- 

 sions of the lower courts, and held that a law 

 impairing the obligations of contracts was un- 

 constitutional, and that there was no evidence 

 in this record that the notes offered in payment 

 of taxes by the plaintiff were issued in aid of 

 the rebellion, or any consideration forbidden by 

 the Constitution or law of the United States, 

 and that no presumption arose from anything 



