CHAPTERVIIIRADICAL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIONThe“carnival of crime and corruption” described in the preceding chapter was not confined to the Legislature. Similar scenes were enacted in almost every county and city in the State. As the suffrage limitations placed upon the ex-Confederates applied to all elections, the Radicals were in complete control of these local governments. The large municipalities, such as Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Knoxville were the greatest sufferers from the rule of irresponsible and corrupt officials.In 1867, a carpetbagger, by the name of Alden, had succeeded in being elected Mayor of Nashville. Having filled the city council with his political followers, most of whom were non-property-holders, he entered upon a course of open and systematic public plunder, which made even the State administration stand aghast. The city treasury was soon drained. The tax rate was enormously increased; but as this did not suffice, checks, warrants, and due bills, made out in the name of the city, and payable to bearer, were sold to street shavers of notes at any price they could bring. Bonds were also issued. As these evidences of indebtedness multiplied, the market quotations for them declined.In the face of this wholesale corruption, Alden and his associates were re-elected. It now became evident that, unless some heroic measure was resorted to, the entire property of the city would be confiscated by their rapacity. A tax-payers association was formed, which began a campaign of public agitation. Public meetings were held in various parts of the city, and resolutions were adopted denouncing the “Alden ring” in the most scathing terms.It was finally decided to seek relief through the courts. All the judges throughout the State were Radical, but in striking contrast with all the other officials of the Radical régime, they were men of unquestioned integrity, and, for the most part, lawyers of high standing. They had displayed great independence in interpreting the franchise laws, and in curtailing, as far as possible, the excessive use of the military power. Mr. Thornburg, the defeated candidate for mayor, filed a bill in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, in which he alleged that the city administration was inefficient, that its members were guilty of fraud and corruption, and that of right their offices were vacant because they were not owners of real estate, as required by law. He therefore prayed that the city officials be enjoined from the further issuance of checks and notes, and that they be declared usurpers and turned out of office, and that a receiver be appointed to take charge of the affairs of the corporation. Pending the coming in of the answer of the defendants, and the final decision of the case, Chancellor Shackelford granted a temporary injunction restraining the mayor and the city council from receiving any salary or perquisites of office. On December 7th, final decision was rendered, the Chancellor using the following language: “I am of the opinion that the complainants are not entitled to the injunction or the receiver prayed for, and the application is therefore refused.”In May, 1869, Col. A. S. Colyar, editor of theUnion and American, and one of the most distinguished lawyers in the South, made a thorough examination of the city’s books and records. At a mass-meeting of the citizens, he made the most startling disclosure in regard to the extravagance and corruption uncovered by that investigation. He declared that the city was in the hands of thieves, and expressed the opinion that there was not a judge on the bench of Tennessee who would refuse to grant relief. On June 1st, he filed a bill at Gallatin, Tenn., before Charles Smith, Chancellor of the Seventh Chancery Division.The bill was brought “in the name of the State in the relation of 466 citizens in behalf of themselves and others against the mayor, and the city council, the city treasurer, revenue collector, and others.” It prayed “that further speculation in checks be enjoined; that no more checks be issued and no more received until, on the one hand, the right of the city to issue them should be accurately defined, and until, on the other, the validity of outstanding checks should be determined; that the corporation officers who were defendants in the case, be compelled to account for money made by speculation in the means and credit of the city; and lastly, that a receiver of known financial ability, with good credit and good reputation, be appointed with full power to control the finances of the city and make contracts so as to save the city from ruin.”The terrible condition of the city was set forth at length in the bill. It was alleged, among other things, that $1,323,668 in checks had been issued, $759,000 of which were without authority of law, while much of the remainder was for illegal purposes. The most exorbitant rates of interest were paid, in some cases as much as 100%. Failing to meet its maturing obligations, the creditors of the city were resorting to the courts, and the city’s property was being sold to satisfy them.After an elaborate argument of the case, in which the defendants were represented by eminent lawyers, Chancellor Smith granted the prayer of the petitioners. Mr. John M. Bass was appointed receiver. After furnishing a bond of $500,000, he entered upon the receivership, June 28th. On the following month, a motion was made by the deposed officials, in the Nashville Chancery Division, to have the receivership dissolved. The motion came up for hearing before Judge Edwin H. East, the successor of Chancellor Shackelford. Judge East had been the private secretary of President Johnson, and had taken a leading part in the reorganization of the State.In arguing against the motion to dissolve, Col. Colyar took the ground that a municipal corporation was not a political body, but simply a business corporation whose officers were amenable to the courts for the proper discharge of their functions. Judge East concurred in this view, and upheld the receivership. In his opinion, he used the following language: “The functions of a municipality are twofold: first, political, discretionary, legislative; secondly, ministerial. While acting within the sphere of the former, they are exempt from liability inasmuch as the corporation is a part of the government, to that extent, and its officers are to the same extent public officers, and as such entitled to the protection of this principle; but within the sphere of the latter (ministerial duties), they drop the badge of governmental officers, and become, as it were, the representatives of a private corporation in the exercise of private functions. The distinction between these legislative powers which it holds for public purposes as a part of the government of the country, and those public franchises which belong to it as creation of law, is well taken.”The receivership was of short duration. In August the regular city election occurred. Mr. Morris, a wealthy citizen, was elected mayor. Immediately after the election, the affairs of the city were again placed in the hands of its ordinary officials.Several years after the occurrence of these extraordinary proceedings, Col. Colyar, in a speech delivered at Buffalo, N. Y., explained the legal theory on which he placed the application for the receivership. “I took the ground,” he said, “that, while in England, cities were in a sense political, because in the creation of the House of Commons, the cities and boroughs had in part organized it, in the time of Edward I., and to this day, as cities and boroughs, they elect members to the House of Commons; but that in this country, our cities have no such political status, and that in nowise are they separate from the balance of the community in politics, and therefore our cities are not political bodies, and that the delegation of a part of a State’s sovereignty is a fiction, and the management of a city is a mere trust.”
The“carnival of crime and corruption” described in the preceding chapter was not confined to the Legislature. Similar scenes were enacted in almost every county and city in the State. As the suffrage limitations placed upon the ex-Confederates applied to all elections, the Radicals were in complete control of these local governments. The large municipalities, such as Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Knoxville were the greatest sufferers from the rule of irresponsible and corrupt officials.
In 1867, a carpetbagger, by the name of Alden, had succeeded in being elected Mayor of Nashville. Having filled the city council with his political followers, most of whom were non-property-holders, he entered upon a course of open and systematic public plunder, which made even the State administration stand aghast. The city treasury was soon drained. The tax rate was enormously increased; but as this did not suffice, checks, warrants, and due bills, made out in the name of the city, and payable to bearer, were sold to street shavers of notes at any price they could bring. Bonds were also issued. As these evidences of indebtedness multiplied, the market quotations for them declined.
In the face of this wholesale corruption, Alden and his associates were re-elected. It now became evident that, unless some heroic measure was resorted to, the entire property of the city would be confiscated by their rapacity. A tax-payers association was formed, which began a campaign of public agitation. Public meetings were held in various parts of the city, and resolutions were adopted denouncing the “Alden ring” in the most scathing terms.
It was finally decided to seek relief through the courts. All the judges throughout the State were Radical, but in striking contrast with all the other officials of the Radical régime, they were men of unquestioned integrity, and, for the most part, lawyers of high standing. They had displayed great independence in interpreting the franchise laws, and in curtailing, as far as possible, the excessive use of the military power. Mr. Thornburg, the defeated candidate for mayor, filed a bill in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, in which he alleged that the city administration was inefficient, that its members were guilty of fraud and corruption, and that of right their offices were vacant because they were not owners of real estate, as required by law. He therefore prayed that the city officials be enjoined from the further issuance of checks and notes, and that they be declared usurpers and turned out of office, and that a receiver be appointed to take charge of the affairs of the corporation. Pending the coming in of the answer of the defendants, and the final decision of the case, Chancellor Shackelford granted a temporary injunction restraining the mayor and the city council from receiving any salary or perquisites of office. On December 7th, final decision was rendered, the Chancellor using the following language: “I am of the opinion that the complainants are not entitled to the injunction or the receiver prayed for, and the application is therefore refused.”
In May, 1869, Col. A. S. Colyar, editor of theUnion and American, and one of the most distinguished lawyers in the South, made a thorough examination of the city’s books and records. At a mass-meeting of the citizens, he made the most startling disclosure in regard to the extravagance and corruption uncovered by that investigation. He declared that the city was in the hands of thieves, and expressed the opinion that there was not a judge on the bench of Tennessee who would refuse to grant relief. On June 1st, he filed a bill at Gallatin, Tenn., before Charles Smith, Chancellor of the Seventh Chancery Division.
The bill was brought “in the name of the State in the relation of 466 citizens in behalf of themselves and others against the mayor, and the city council, the city treasurer, revenue collector, and others.” It prayed “that further speculation in checks be enjoined; that no more checks be issued and no more received until, on the one hand, the right of the city to issue them should be accurately defined, and until, on the other, the validity of outstanding checks should be determined; that the corporation officers who were defendants in the case, be compelled to account for money made by speculation in the means and credit of the city; and lastly, that a receiver of known financial ability, with good credit and good reputation, be appointed with full power to control the finances of the city and make contracts so as to save the city from ruin.”
The terrible condition of the city was set forth at length in the bill. It was alleged, among other things, that $1,323,668 in checks had been issued, $759,000 of which were without authority of law, while much of the remainder was for illegal purposes. The most exorbitant rates of interest were paid, in some cases as much as 100%. Failing to meet its maturing obligations, the creditors of the city were resorting to the courts, and the city’s property was being sold to satisfy them.
After an elaborate argument of the case, in which the defendants were represented by eminent lawyers, Chancellor Smith granted the prayer of the petitioners. Mr. John M. Bass was appointed receiver. After furnishing a bond of $500,000, he entered upon the receivership, June 28th. On the following month, a motion was made by the deposed officials, in the Nashville Chancery Division, to have the receivership dissolved. The motion came up for hearing before Judge Edwin H. East, the successor of Chancellor Shackelford. Judge East had been the private secretary of President Johnson, and had taken a leading part in the reorganization of the State.
In arguing against the motion to dissolve, Col. Colyar took the ground that a municipal corporation was not a political body, but simply a business corporation whose officers were amenable to the courts for the proper discharge of their functions. Judge East concurred in this view, and upheld the receivership. In his opinion, he used the following language: “The functions of a municipality are twofold: first, political, discretionary, legislative; secondly, ministerial. While acting within the sphere of the former, they are exempt from liability inasmuch as the corporation is a part of the government, to that extent, and its officers are to the same extent public officers, and as such entitled to the protection of this principle; but within the sphere of the latter (ministerial duties), they drop the badge of governmental officers, and become, as it were, the representatives of a private corporation in the exercise of private functions. The distinction between these legislative powers which it holds for public purposes as a part of the government of the country, and those public franchises which belong to it as creation of law, is well taken.”
The receivership was of short duration. In August the regular city election occurred. Mr. Morris, a wealthy citizen, was elected mayor. Immediately after the election, the affairs of the city were again placed in the hands of its ordinary officials.
Several years after the occurrence of these extraordinary proceedings, Col. Colyar, in a speech delivered at Buffalo, N. Y., explained the legal theory on which he placed the application for the receivership. “I took the ground,” he said, “that, while in England, cities were in a sense political, because in the creation of the House of Commons, the cities and boroughs had in part organized it, in the time of Edward I., and to this day, as cities and boroughs, they elect members to the House of Commons; but that in this country, our cities have no such political status, and that in nowise are they separate from the balance of the community in politics, and therefore our cities are not political bodies, and that the delegation of a part of a State’s sovereignty is a fiction, and the management of a city is a mere trust.”