In December of last year the Atlanta _Constitution_, discussing this subject, used the following language: “The burden of his complaint is, that the bonds have never had a hearing in court. This comes with poor grace from the ex-Governor, who, when the validity of the bonds issued under his administration was being discussed by the legislative committee, was absent from this country, his whereabouts unknown, and his testimony not procurable. The bonds were ‘in court’ then, and as Governor Bullock was not present with his evidence when it was needed, he should not complain that a new hearing is not had for his benefit.” To this I made reply, which the _Constitution_ kindly published, and I will thank you to copy as follows: “I desire to say that I was not absent from the country. My whereabouts were known, and my testimony was before the committee in the full and complete report of the financial condition of the State which I made to my successor, sustained by the official records of the Executive and State Departments. I never received a request from that committee to come before them in person, and my presence would not have added to the information in their possession. Every request received by me from my successors, to aid in their investigations, has been promptly complied with. In accordance with such request I met Dr. Bozeman, financial agent, Attorney-General Hammond and Governor Smith, in New York, and also subsequently, Colonel Snead, Attorney for the State, and Colonel Kibbe, chairman of committee. No fact within my knowledge has ever been withheld, nor have I ever neglected any proper opportunity to contradict the statement that any of the bonds issued during my administration and reported to my successor were ‘bogus.’ But, Mr. Editor, the question is, shall a debtor pass on the validity and enforce judgment against his own indebtedness? I submit that a legislative investigating committee is not ‘a court’ in the sense that its findings are conclusive on questions of law. To hold a question so decided to be _res adjudicata_, is to sustain a legislative usurpation of the judicial functions of the government. If your position be well taken, that because the Legislature has decided against the bonds, the case is _res adjudicata_, and the judiciary is precluded—of what avail is our constitutional guarantee that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government shall be separate and distinct, and that neither shall encroach upon the functions of the other? What protection has a citizen for his property if a legislative decision upon a legal question must be regarded as final _res adjudicata_?