University of South Carolina Libraries
The Press and Banner, j' By IIlKill WILSON & W. U. BENET. AlIIiKVILLE, S.C. Wednesday, Jan. 8, 1879, Judge Hudson's Dissecting Opinion. It would bo a pity if the readers of thej Press and Banner, on glancing at our| columns this morning, should be fright-1 ed at the solid mass of reading presented ; by Judge Hudson's opinion in the famous Bond cases. The only fault thej,, opinion has is its great length, in spite of, which, however, wo earnestly urge our; readers to road it through. "Whoever' does so will agree with us that it is a! most able document, reflecting great I credit on the Judge who pronounced it | and on tiie oflloe which lie holds. A f t long opinion was unavoidable, especially j J as Judge Hudson was 0110 against two,;' no to speak, in the Court of Claims.j1 Limited though the jurisdiction ofthe1'" Court was, according to the judgment ol';c a majority of the Judges, yet even Judge j Thomson's opinion was of considerable u length. Judge Hudson's, therefore, J' could not avoid being long since ho gives s the Court a much wider and fuller juris- j11 diction, reviews the wholo circumstances] surrounding the Bond Debt, and pio-|c nounees upon each class thereof, giving ? copious authorities. j j We need not discuss the subject "or;i analyze the opinion. Suffice it to savin that Judge Hudson occupies the ground ' which tho J'reas and Banner has always s held: namely, that the Consolidated IJ Debt is valid, and the State is in honor j t bound to pay it. In that wo think he is j J right. As to the plenary jurisdiction he^ would givo the Court of Claims, we rath-j" or think Judgo Thomson is more correct jc in his moro literal interpretation of the!c words and effect of the Joint Resolution, j J Tho latter expressly declares that the 'j elVect of tho Act, and all cognate matters J were not brought within the jurisdiction ; i? i of the Court; the lornier cousiuere mm ; ( tlio main question, namely, the legal)! Consolidation Act was within its juris- j diction. Doctors differ, and so do; J Judges. AVe believe, however, that il'j t Ihe Court had dope as much as Judge!1 Hudson thinks it had a right to do, the < I I State, the Legislature, the bondholder, , and the taxpayer, would have given it J? sincere thanks and no plea to 'the juris-1, diction would have been made. As it is, j1 the main question is'untouched, no set- < tloment has been made, and the battle of j1 tlio bonds will soon be renewed in a i higher Court. ( j Condition of the Treasury. To tho courtesy of Capt. J. W. ,1'orrin, i the very efficient and ever courteous ' County Treasurer, we are indebted for i the following statement, which must be ( be full and clear that all may understand i' without trouble, and shows what a faith- <( ful and a competent officer can do for the people whom he serves: STATE TAXES. j Tax collected for State $22,(Km 2n ' Penalty " " 5(K) (Kt|t $23,165 23 j i Am'tpnid State Treas 2.",,024 4(5 Treas. Coin's 312 00 24,230 4(> | J i? ~ a i riTI >! i' uver paiu ouuu v * ? n SCHOOL TAX. 1 Tax collected for Schools $10,107 15 Penalty " " 200 00 $10,307 13 j I Araoiint Polls 5,017 j Polls abated 152 -4,805 00 Total for Schools ?15,172 15 j' Paid out for Schools 14,522 19 j ? G49 9t? I Deduct Treas. Corn's 208 00 j Bal. to crcdit schools ? 441 % !>' . COUNTY CURItKNT YEAR. 1 f Tax collected for County ?15,120 30 J Penaltj' " 300 00 i Fiucs " " 52 00 J Total Received ?15,481 30 j Paid out as per Vouchers 11,951 97 i 529 33 1 Deduct Treas. Corn's 210 00 Bal. to credit of County $ 319 32 j PAST INDEBTEDNESS. ! On hand S 114 IS ( Kec'dfrom K. E .Hill, Sheriff1..... 108 OOj l Collected 1 Mill Tax 5,0oT> 43 " Penalty 100 00 Total received ?5,377 61 Paid out as per Vouchors. 5,0i?2 251 ? 2S5 | Dcduct Treas. Corn's 70 00! Bal. to crcdit of county ? 215 30 Augusta, Knoxvim.k <fe Greenwood Railroad Tax. Total received to date ?2,714 f>lj Paid Treas. of tho Company 2,">11 00 j ? 203 51 Corn's off. SI 45 Bal. to crcdit of Company ? 122 06 Meeting of School Trustees. The County Board of Examiners has called a meeting of tho Trustees of the' ^ public schools to be held in Abbeville on! Monday, 13tli inst. Abbeville County lias always taken deep interest in educa- . tlon, and now moie th?n at any former! * | time are her people called on to look alter; the instruction of the young. A sum of about fifteen thousand dollars is to be distributed this year among the schools of the County. Much good should be accomplished by it, and it rests with tho County Board and tho various district boards to see that tho money is properly I ^^SS^tJPTTFficially disbursed. It is to be' hoped that the school term will be made; as long as possible and that the pay of the j teachers will be increased. Both objects | can be attained by lessening the number j of schools, which are now too numerous. Many reforms are needed, and wo hope ] tho meeting of the Trustees next Monday will be a full one, so that tho County | Board may have its hands strengthened j J.. 84.. .1 1. | in ius uruuuus v\uuv? 5 The Legislature. i I The Cheater Reporter is disposed to; i think the last Legislature did but little!I for the public good. The people of' Ab-ir bovillo are abundantly satisfied with:' their Representatives on general princi-1 pies but if they had done nothing more, for us than to lift from our shoulders; 0 the thirty per cent, levied upon our farms, { by the State Board of Equalization, and j j to give us the stock law, we can well af- | i ford to be satisfied. Their pay was per- j ' haps ono hundred and fifty dollars each, i t -while* they saved jflRin cxccssivo taxes j alone, nearly sevenxhousand dollara an- j t nually, besides bestowing tho great 1' blessing of 'IiO stock law. Our ltepre- f sentativea lis re reason to bo proud of ? their laurels. Abbeville Litebary Club.?The t club hold its usual monthly meeting at I the house of W. A. Lee, Ksq., last Friday evening. Bitterly cold though the r nighl was, there was a very numerous at- 1 tendance of members. The essayist, i Rev. R. N. Pratt, read an admirable pa- t per on "The Unity of the Races,"?:a very ? debatable subject, which provoked *a long, eager and most interesting discus-1 "v sion. The usual club-supper brought to n a close ono of tho best meetings the club!1 has ever held. The club begins the new |" year in excellent condition. Its mom- jc berxhip keeps up, and its library is in-!f creasing in value. Tho last year s peri- j li odieals and niagRzines were sold at 4mc-j't tion last Saturday and realized over $2S.; 0 This sum added to the annual subscrip- j " tions enabies the club to procure all the > first magazines and reviews. A MONO otherYriends from Due West woo were here on Sale Day, we met Rev. v Dr.-Bonner and Rev. Dr. Patton. It is a g long tiuio since the Jatler was seen in our n town. We hope he will come oftener for a hi in. tl rhc State Debt AH Tali DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDC HUDSON IN THE BOND CASES. Every Irregularity in the Old lion Waived or Validated by the Stai and every Consolidation Bond a Stock a Valid Obligation,? Irrespc< ivc of the Regularity of the Vouc ers on which it is Based. The dissenting opinion of Judge Hudson lie liond cases is us follows ; The Suite of South Carolina, City of Coin l?ia?In tlie Court of Claims. (Jeo.W.Wa er, Cashier, I'laintitr. vs The State of Son Carolina; Francis J. Felzer. Plaintiff > The state of South Carolina, and sund other holders of consolidated Bonds l'lulntitfs. against the State of South Ca*c na, as Defendant. Actions on Coupons Consolidation lionds. These are cases made up for the purpose esting the validity of certain bonds of t state of South Carolina, known as consolit ion bonds. issued under act of December >7.'!, "To reduce the volume of the pub lebt." The plaintiff, in each of the nine sevei ascs above, alleges, respectively, that he he lawful owner and holder for value oft ouponssued upon, and of the bond to will he same belongs; that demand has been ma ipon the proper otllcers of the State for pa nenl which has been refused, and deimui udgmeiitagainst the State, Ac. Defences ? et up by the State in her answers to tlx everal suits, which, when grouped togeth nay be classed as follows; KICFF.NCIW OF THE STATE. l.fThnt a portion of the vouchers surrend d and for which these Consolidated Iran cere in part issued, had been by thetinanc igent clipped or detached from certain "1 ief of the Treasury bonds" which were ne\ ssued, and never became a charge against t 'tale. The coupons so detached, it is allege mount to over $11,(100 That a portion of the vouchers surre lercd, ami for which some of the bonds ult wore iii part issued, baa uecn aeuicu rom certain Conversion bonds, and In t iroeess of eonversion should have been ached to the certificates of stoek in Jteti vhleh tlie Conversion bonds weru lied away with said certificates of sCMJ| rouchers. The coupons thus deUv'J imount to nearly $10,WW. ;t. That a portion of the vonchers surrend d, and lor which some of the bonds In si vere in fact issued, were coupon^ niaturi >n or before .July 1,187? and as the State pi lie interest on the public debt up to that ; iod, these coupons must have been pa Che amount of coupons thus maturlngland rNchange for which Consolidation bouds w< ssued, is SJS(5,025. 1. That a portion of the vouchers enteri ntosome of these bonds sued on embra< oupons surrendered by Y. J- 1'. Owens luent, bv (jovernor Scott, and L. X. Zea imountiug to Slil.iHHi, which coupons li ecu clipped by the financial agent fr< Kinds before being Issued, and hail been iiin sent to X. U. l'arker to t>e fraudulcn onsiili(taled,aiid were consolidated in fin >r the act. ">. That a portion of the vouchorssurrend ?d, and in exchange for which sonic of I muds in suit wereln part issued, consisted Hinds and coupons in the hands of the tlni ial agent, which had been by him liypotl ailed after the time allowed by law. 1 unolint Urns'hypothecated is alleged to lit1 jecii Si',l0t;,0ot?. ( . That a portion of the surrendered vou< ;rs which enter intosomeof the bonds in s consists of the second issue of bonds "for I payment of interest on the public debt," leged to be fraudulent, T. A portion of the vouchers represented part in some of the bonds in suit are 1 [.and Commission bonds, all of which arc leged to be fraudulent. s. That a large number of the bonds whl were consolidated and which are in part n resented in some of the lands in suit, wi never registered in the treasury as is 1 uired iii Sec, 14, Art, IX of the Consti Lion. !?. That the Consolidation act in so fara.< rentes a nubile debt is unconstitutional a k'oid, because not passed by a two thirds vi >f each branch of the General Assembly, :orded by yeas and nays. 1U. That several of the acts under wh -otneof the Reconstruction bonds were Is i>d (ami which bonds were subsequently c< solidated) were not passed bv the re<juis wo-thirds vote of the (j en era I Assemby, u were therefore void. AJgreat deal of evidence, oral and documc iry, was introduced to substitute the afo aid facts .alleged by the State in her "ence. We propose first to consider the questlor he validity of the various bonds liisuit uf he hypothesis that the allegations of fact he State are true ; in other words, as it a nurrer to the answers had been tiled by I mndholders. REVIEW OF FINANCIAL LEQISI-NTION. To arrive at a correct conclusion upon i -sues we will be greatly aided by a hi itatement of the financial legislation of I state from the ratification of the presentO itilution until the present period. When the first Legislature under the n 'onstitution assembled they fouud an em] reasury, and a State debt exceeding in iggrogatc seven millions of dollars, includ in> known as the Hills Kecci vu iinl the liability of theStatcfor the outsta ing bills of the Bank of the State, and ;ltuling the debt contracted in aid of the !>ellion, so called, which had becu declu void. All reflecting men foresaw that under i idminlstration of ignorance and cupid there would be mismanagement of the tin :-cs of the state, and the speedy result a the Inauguration of a syHtem of reckless travaganee and profligacy on the part of <tate officials and Legislature, which s< rendered bankrupt the treasury of the St ^lid destroyed her credit. in the following order were enacted th lets which rapidly increased the volume the public debt; EP1TOMK OF THE ACTS. 2. On the2Cth August, 1ST8, "An Act to tliorlze a loan to redeem the obligate known as the Hills Receivable of the Stat< south Carolina." This act authorized the Governor to t ow upon Coupon bonds of the State, wltl welve months from the pass-age of the 5 lie sum of five hundred thousand dollars to much be necessary. The outstanding B iteccivable amounted to about ?300,000. X >tat., 17. 2. August 20th, 1S8S, "An Act to authoriz can to pay the Interest on the public deb By thlsact the Governor was authorized jorrow upon Coupon bonds of the State, wi n twelve months from the passage of the; he sum of one million dollars, if so much Iceincd necessary. XIX Stat., 18. The number of bonds to be issued un< hese acts is not limited: the sum of monej ie raised is limited. Whatever number Hinds may be necessary to raise the requif unount of money, thetiovernoris author!: o sign and issue. Under tlie tirst named i oUO.UOO of bonds were issued. Under the 1 lamed net Sl,t*J0,U00of bonds were tirst issu rid upon the face of each was the recital t! t was issued under an "Act to authorize oati to pay the interest on the public deb rhis gave the bonds a bad odor In tne m il'l, Wlim'upill It liUllllHl Ul uuunir loads were Issued for the purpose of retiri lie llrst, on the lace of each ol which v he less prejudicial recital that it was issu 'under Act of August 2(1, 1807."' Ily this s ind issue $550,000 of the llrst were retlr md at ft later period nearly S.'!uO,(XM) ni< vere called in, leaving less than $-00,000 he tlrst issue outstanding, and all of the s >nd. 3, September 15,1SCS, "An act to close t iperations of the Uank of the State of Sot 'aroilna." liy this act the hills of theba nitstandliig and issued prior to Deeeml 0, 1s(k), wore authorized to be funded by uing in lieu thereof bonds of the Sta jnder its operation about SI,'JIN>,000 of bl vere funded in bonds to that amount. X Stat., 32. J. February 17, 1869, "An net tonutliorlz oan for the relief til' the treasury." liy this act the Governor Is authorized lorrow, within twelve months from Its pi mge, upon Coupon bonds of the State, SUA kh>. If so much be deemed necessary ; anil I imit of time mentioned in the acts of A ;usl 20, lSUK, aforesaid, Is extended to twen our (24).months, instead of twelve mont (CIV Stat., is-'. No limit to the number of bonds to be iued under tbls act is given. Knougli boi ire to be sold or pledged to enable the Uov lorto borrow $1,000,000, if so much bo dec :il necessary. 5. March 'St, 1Si>9, "An net to provide for t :onversion of State securities." The purpose of this act was to retire nil t iiitstanding stocks and bonds of the State ssuing in lieu thereof Conversion bonds, a bus to produce uniformity in the bonds, a locks of the Slate by having but a slni iluss. XIV stiit., 241. Over $ti,000,'i00 of these bonds were issu ?ut few, however, in accordance with t erms of the act, the greater portion : to w .j,<Hii,000, being Issued in fraud of the net ti. March 2t>, lsffli, "An act to authorize the lanciai agent of tiie State of South Carolii n the City of New York, to pledge SU Kinds as collateral security and for other pi ium'S.'1 XIV Stat., 258. 7. March 27, 18t>9, "Ail act to provide fort ippointment of a I-and Commissioner, a o deiine liis powers and duties." XIV SU jiy this act the treasurer of the State v luthorizod to issue to the land Commissioi 'oupon bonds of the State in the sum ofS2i !. I.. >1.,, II. ? ...I..1, .. l.?. WU, II, III nil.' "I""'"""' W1V .lUHKUiJ uu, ;o much is deemed accessary. March 1. 1! >y an amendatory act, he was nnthorlzctl ssue S5<K),0W) more of Coupon bonds to 1 and commissioner, If so much be necessi n the opinion of the advisory board. X itat.. ;>8o-2 8. Dceoinbcr 18, 1800, It war enacted U ,lic Interest on the public debt be paid in c< ncludlng the interest on tne State-Hoi )onds, but excluding the debt contracted ween December 1, ISW, and April IB, it UV Stat. 888. 9. March 1, 1S70, the net known as 1 ilnklnu Fund act, which uutiiorlzed I 'commissioners of the Sinking Fund" to t ill pcrsonul propertyof the State not In r\ Ic use and apply the proceeds to the Sink! ?'und. XIV Stat. 388. 10. March IB, 1K72, "An net to authorize i financial Hoard to effect a settlement w he financial ajjent of tlie .Slate, Hiram vimpton. XV Stat. 277. 11. March 16, 1S72, was ratified the act elation to certain bonds of the State knoi ts the Validating act, XV Stat. 278. Tiiedeclared purpose of tills act was to ; rioveall doubts In regard to the regularity heiKsuy of certain bonds therein speclflca 'numerated by classes, and concerning whi loubts had bci'n expressed as to the legal if the!r issue. The ju-t declares I hat the sai ras issued according to the truo intent a neaning of thesajd??vei?ilacts and are v d bonds; butitfi .one section declare that no re bo included whlfih were not tkeu rcgist d. After the foregoing epitome of nets urtber comment is necessary upon the rec ess management of tiie .State ilnnnces hose entrusted therewith. Rather in n.ppi f desperation than otherwise they procui r suffered the XVI amendment to t.lie Cc titntion to be adopted, which ended ll peciesof financial legislation. KAD1CAL DOUUTS AKI) CHAKOEJi, At this poi nt we pause to recur to .the st? rhicli were taken during (his wild e.xtra\ ance to investigate the condition of thedt f the State and the management of her ances. For this purpose committees w< ppoiuted by the Legislature -from time d I body upon them, bear materially upon thcjvc t! great quest ion before us. to * That grave doubts as to the validity of a.nr portion of tlie pnl)iic debt existed is a well, lei ! L-nmvii (net mill tills fiict Is iidinI tteil in the I C'( ! preamble tlio Validating act of March UJ, I | 1ST:!, the avowed inn-pose of which act was to cure all supposed defects and irregularities In the issue of certain classes of bonds therein ]\j speeilically enumerated. That such was the j-' legal ell'eetof the act is expressly held in the case of Morton IMlss ,t Co., vs the Coiuptrol- ru ds ler-Goneral, 4, S. (', l.ty, In 1S71 because of the grave charges of Hie- > [e?|galityin the issuing of bonds under the va- cc nil j rious acts of the Legislature, the House of u, Kepresentatives appointed a committee to tj, Ct- | inquire into the matter of the over-issue of ?| jj. i Stale bonds, and on the lltth of December, 1S71, a Joint eommiltee of the House ami ar Senate was appointed to examine the ac- ac counts of the State Treasurer, comptroller- j,,, ,n general and financial agent. The report of the first committee is to be loutul on page S67 fr( m-1 K. ami K., l!f71-2, and the full report of the su Ik- i Joint committee covelrng over 300 pages, is eil ith j appended to It. and It., lS71-"?. wj "s. j These reports are full and unsparing, and |() ry | evince a spirit of candor somewhat surpris- ja. as I ing. considering the active eomplleliy of Its au >li-1 authors in the p roll I gate financial legislation I W( of | of theperlod. Jle this as 11 may, It Is cerlsUn-, j ly true that these reports laid before the Leg- is of I isluture and the people of the Stale an I j-r( l,e I amount of information touching the tlnan-! u, i.. I ein I a ll'airs of the State, littlo' It any. short ofl?u 2>_> j Mio light that Is .shed on the sub|ect by the I ^.* ffc able report of the llond Commission In March n'. 1?78. alt l?y these very elaborate reports of Dccem- vc js ber, 1S71, the State authorities, the Legislalu. ture ami the people, were made aware of the cj, number of bonds issued under each act, and dc of all the alleged defects and irregularities In | ... this issue sale, and hypothecation ; u fact of w'| jg the utmost significance in its bearing upon UI) irt. the Issues Involved in these suits, as will be jc >se seen hereafter. pr On the Kith March, l.*72, a little more than ' two months after these very full reports, and p<] in the face of these grave charges therein ' touching the irregularities of various classes be pr. of bonds, the Legislature passed the Validat- [e| ,js ing Act, which declared all these various (jt i?'i classes of bonds to have been duly and regu- hi t". larly issued, Jg er objections already answered. bo ,ie One year subsequent to this significant act bt! ;tl. the suit of Morton, JJIIss ? (Jo. vs. the (,'omp- er troll er-General was decided. In this suit *fr nearly every objection?certainly every sub- J" "] stautlai objection?now raised was then urged 111 ?d against the validity of the several classes of 011 b? bonds In lleuof which Consolidation bondsat c.c flfty cents 011 the dollar have since been isued. k:,, ?f Every question was decided squarely against P" the State and in favor of the bondholders In Mint suit. It decided that the "Bills Kecciva- g* Ble bonds,"' the "Intereston the Public Debt n{ bonds," the "Hellef of the Treasury bonds," c9 er" the "iJind Commission bonds," were valid obligations of the State. The force and effect J*1 "K of tliisdecislon cannot be avoided by unfavo- 'u kil' rahle criticism. Until ovcrr ded. It Is the law p I'?* of the case, and rights ac\,...rcd under it can- pi not be divested, even should it now be over- ?,( ln ruled. -rc Hut to defeat the practical operation of this Is Judgment, the Legislature on the 22d Decern- 's! ng i der, repealed the provision of law which L< :es j required the comptroller "to give notice of | ' UK j the rate per centum necessary to be levied 111 I unon the taxable property of the State." ?u 11,1 I The operation of the writ of mandamus was ?M! I thus avoided, and the bondholders were baf?>; | fled, being thus tosome extent left ln doubt J",1' . as to what amount of her debt the Shite was *-f uu , nuble for, and what remedies were available ol to tlieui to enforce their demands, er- cc lie the consolidated act. til 1 <>f T" Jl.l? ulntA " f IIia iwil-a I * linlnir nnnn D U1* doubtful ns to the ultimate determination of l,( }?~ the question Involved, and vet with full light [" ,le before them, the Legislature resolved to efLVU j feet a settlement of the bond debt of the *1' . State, ?nd wJth tills view, on the22d Decern- ~ "'!* ber, 1K73, passed the "Act to reduce the vol- Vi 1,11 uine of the public debt,''commonly known as J1' -".e the Consolidation act. " ul" Tliis aet rejects 55,!K>">,000 of the Conversion . bonds as being Illegal and void, and provides 111 for the funding at fifty cents on the dollar of '''e|the entire remainder of the outstanding n( ll1* bonds and ceriificaies of slock, and all out- w . . standing coupons matnring.and to mature on i)( lcl1 the 1st day of January 1S74. p, 'I'* To preclude misunderstanding, the amounts L're of outstanding bonds and certificates of stock w yc* issued under each aet are carefully given in . ( lu* figures, and conform exactly to the report of i the treasure! of date October i:t, 1X73. "}j ! Uy thisrejHjrt it appears that the entlredebt c< 'ul of the State, evidenced by bonds and certitijte wuos of stock, was ,S15.K5I,(>27 3-5 bi re" The net declared voia 5,9<w,U00 Wi c( Ich If su- Leaving a balance of. 8 O.SSG.tfi? 35 n >n- Which funded as directed ,ut 8< ite 50 per ccnt., gives 5 4,04.1,313 07 SJ nd as the ultimate Consolidated debt of the V State, being less than one-third of the origl- r' nt- nai amount, and much less tliun tlie Bond ' re- debt ??nd liabilities of the State at the date of de- Reconstruction. In the spring of 1874 the net p was put in operation. The funding began, .. i of but had not proceeded far when a committee >011 was appointed by tlic Legislature, of which " by Senator T. C. Dunn was chairman, "to ascer- r* de- tain what bonds of the State have been fund- 9 the cd under the act to reduce the volume of the public debt, and what Interest coupons have l< been funded under the said act... The committee proceeded to New York, and cxamin- P the ed the Financial Agent and his books, and ^ lef gathered from these sources all available testhe tlniony. The full and searching report of " on- this committee is to be found lu R. and R., jj IS74-5. In it arc reiterated the substantial ob- J, ew Jections as to over-Issue, irregulur hypntheca- ?| ntviiiiin ^p nfhonds and fundinir of coupons the now raised, and the com nut lee, wo are told, Ing urged the attorney-general to take steps to Me enjoin the treasurer and arrest the work. V "d" CAHDOZA. gj The Legislature took no steps to Interfere n rei and the attorney-general refused to do so w and In his annual report gave as his chief # i?)e reason for declining to act, that the matters l,v were concluded by the decision In Morton, Bliss a-Co. In March, lf>7.5, the Legislatureap- , ' pointed a committee to prepare an address to ex. the Governor for the removal of Treasurer J the Cardozo for violating the Consolidation act J* X)11 in sundry particulars, chief among which [j ite were that he had Issued Consolidation bonds J. in e.\ch<Migo for a large amount of bonds ose which hftl been Issued in excess of the numof berauthorized by the various acts; and had r Issued Codsolldatlon bonds Iii exchange for a :: large number of coupons of bonds maturing , before July 1, 1*71, and of others which had " au- been clipped from the bonds as they passed ? ons through the hands of thcllnancial agent, and { j of before the bonds were put upon the market. " See charges and specltlcatlons In House Jour- ? or- laI. 1874-a, pages 302-3-1. ? iln t'ardozo was heard through able counsel, ict. viz; Hon, AY'. Porter, of Charleston . C. I). t, , if Melton, of Columbia, and the Hon, Leroy F. , Ills Youmans, the present attorney-general of IV the state. The whole subject was by them , ably handled. The treasurer was acquitted " :ea of the charges of violating the act; the adit." dress failed, the Intelligent white Democrats to almost to|a man sustaining his action, and he th- was directed to proceed in his work of fund- ^ let, Ing. Ho did proceed and funded a much be greater number afterthan he had done before, the public generally supposing that the act X, ler was thus established as a Anal adjustment of , j to the debt. " ?( TIIE BOND COMMISSION* ANTICIPATED. o| The validity of the bonds which he Issued P * In lieu of the securities then assailed Is now put In Issue upon objections to the surren- ?' c,j uered securities which were then urged be- 11 fore the Legislature, and overruled by that . u body, and chiefly by the vote of the real rci>- * ? resentatlvcs of the taxpayers. It Is a notable *r a'r. fact that the arduous labors of the Hond Commission of six months duration,have brought to light few new facts touching the bond c' ...? debtor the State. In the report of the com- j.1 i mlttce of 1871,Senator Dunn's committee of ju ec.. 1874, and the proceedings In the trial of Car- b( ,.,i dozo. nearly all the Irregularities arc charged a( which are preferred by the Bond Commission. ,,r The whole ground Is covered If we add there- J11 to the record In Morton. IJIIssACo. The re- 1' suit of much debate in the Legislature upon ? 1,0 the report of the Hond Commission wa? the lti, reference of the vexed question of the validi?i, ty of the Consolidated bonds to thlscourt. l,K t U] TIIE COURT OF CLAIMS. te" By voluntarily submitting the question of ii' bar liability to the courts, tne State has re- n .y ' jested the idea of repudiation, and declared I her purj>oso to abide by the law. No more ... honorable course could have been adopted. i? This narrative of legislation brings us to n, to the questions at Issue. t, v. In the outset we remark that In the discus- IV sion of these questions wo arc bound toac?,e tllc' Constitution of 1K6S as the fundamenUil laws of the land. Just as much so a* we did that of 1790, nnd all aets of the Loglslatures from 1808 to 1870 as binding upon us }" as were acts prior to the war, subject, and .i. , only subject, to the well established rules of ? , d" construction and Interpretation. ' It is worse than folly In a legal argument or ~ legal opinion to hold that we have been IIv- i ing under a usurpation, and hence arc at liblie crl^ to abide by such laws of that period as s.{ are pleasing, and to disregard such asare odl* i.', . c oub. It matters not how republican, how J ? radical, how Ignorant and how corrupt may I have be^n the Legislatures from 1808 to 1870 nl ':{ I inclusive, nevertheless the laws which they 1 tri i placed upon the Statute books are none the " less binding upon us until repealed, and , right* acquired under tliein areas much to w i,,! be protected by courts as rights acquired un- ae . der prior legislation. Any other doctrine pi would be fundamentally wrong, and fruitful fl of indescribable confusion and evil. Legls- jt latures can make laws and repeal statutes, en ,' Courts can only administer them as they are, pi saving only the right to Interpret them aud of to declare their binding clllcacy. hi be T1IK CONSOLIDATED ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. " tld ?' it., Nor are we called upon to determine the constitutionality of the Consolidation act. tv ras Tho Legislature has accepted it as valid and ler I binding, and the treasurer of the State is still <>< - :i .. iii.. ...if il<nnu'lvl..l<v til.. Ill *?.-1 ciik?I;"' "i?? . j * ?* ?- -? . ird State is unwilling to surrender its marked cl <70,1 advantages. We are only required to detor[ to1 mine the validity of certain classes of Consoi- d< tlie idation bonds which are assailed, not on b< try account of the supposed unconstitutionality "? IV of the net, but because it is aliened that these bi bonds were Issued in exchange for vouchers mt not enumerated in tiieact, or not designed by " ain ! it to bo consolidated. We have no hesitation 1,1 use in saying, however, that the act is constitu- tli be- tionai. It does not pretend to create a debt, ?t iW. but "to reduce the volume of tlie public ci debt." It is a settlement and adjustment of bi the the debt of tlie suite, and this being its intcn- 111 the (Ion, it was regularly enacted. ' fr> sell Under the joint resolution of March 22, of ib- 187#, establishing this Court, its Jurisdiction ,r ing is "to hear and determine any case or cases t'1 made up or brought to test, the validity of the any of the Consolidation bonds, coupons and 01 1th | certificates of stock, or any of the various h< II. classes of them mentioned In the report of the Bond Commission as resting on vouchers 1tli in not issued in accordance with law and au-lca vn thorized to be consolidated" by the Consoll- ' < dation act of December 22, IS73, "and also as di re- not issued in accordance with law, and fur- ?< of ther designated and described in Schedule G El lly of the said report." of ch Section 0 provides that cases be made up Ity "to test the validity oi said Consolidated r' me bonds and coupons and certificates of stock t'1 nd mentioned in said Schedule tl, bringing before al-!the Court the various elasses of vouchors "J >ne which. It is alleged in the report of tlie said bi er- oommlssion, impair the validity of the said Consolidated bonds, coupons or certillcates of no stock or any of them." 1 :k-1 The Consolidation Act of December 22, dc by J 187a, is drawn with care. It specifies tlie Rl' rit | various classes of bonds to be funded and the tii ed amounts eutstanding, and designates tlie ?n-1 bonds which are void and not to be funded. Pi )is ] The valid*re separated from the void. The I question of the validity of ontstanding bonds "J j Js here definitely settled by the Legislature. ? > >'o 'ijscretlon Is left to the treasurer, but. his Qi ps (duties are ministerial and compulsory. The co a- act wiis passed by the Legislature deliberately co :bt and with full light before them. litfore ar tl- them were spread the various acts under fo *re which tlie bonds were issued; the Journals of at to the Legislature the reports of the treasurer, co mt coniptrolior^euerftl and financial agent, tUp Pi ry full reports of investigating committee, ft: say nothing of the discussions in the public i bi ess, and they also had the benefit of the I pi h'al decision of the ease of Morton, Bilsa & tl ). T CONSOLIDATED DKHT VALID. w It Is no apology to nay that the Legislature Cl us a body ol Illiterate men. The binding e, llaiey of an act is not to be measured by the ^ telligencc of Its authors. Wo hold, therere: r( I. tl rhat every bond Issued under Act of De* niber "22, 1*73, for vouchers and securities vrcin enumerated, is a valid obligation of c State, notxTithslanding any defect*, irrrj;aritles and illegalities to which the surreu- Jj, red vouchers may be obnoxious. These Cl e all waived and eirectually cured by the t, and it is vain to say that the Legislature id 110 power to do this. 1, - - ..J -r ,V.? ><*,! l rtic in fx n ill inifii <M I...t ?V> (I( mi questioning the validity of liny bond is-1 r| til 111 exchange for any of the securities n| unierated therein The law of estoppel,' (? icther by niatterof record or in pain applies States as well an to Individuals, lly this L w the hands of a State nre eflcctually iied n' id her mouth as /Irmly scaled as If she v, ;re an luimblo person. Jlut notonly by the g, rins of the act Is the .State estopped, but she ( , likewise by her other actions precluded j' >111 denying the obligations of any wart of e debt recognized In the Consolidation Act r, valid, and It was with a view to make tills t,t pear that we giv<> a brief statement of her rj ts authorizing the issue of bonds and the 0( lugs of the Legislature In the work of in-1 w stigating the State's linances. |j I'hat a State may be estopped from setting > as a defence mere irregularities In the ex- -r liseof a power conferred on its agents, by gi ; failure to repudiate promptly such ai'ts ,, 1011 performed, or to restrain thcirperform- p, ee in time to prevent mischief, has been ,-j, finitely settled by repeated adjudication, t,i \ leading ease In support of tills doctrine Is at of lJelafield vs. the State of Illinois, reirted in 2 Hill (X. V.) 175, 20 Wendell 192. "?! id 81'alge327. l>ld space permit we would pleased to cite extracts rmin tho several irncd opinions delivered In this case. Suf- t| :e It to say, however, that it was contended Cl Delatleld, who had purchased from the; y entof the State of Illinois 5500,000 of her ^ inds at less than par, tthey were required to s. isold at par.) that the conduct of the Clovnor, auditor and fund commissioners w uounted to a ratillcation of the sale. The ?| roe of this argument gave great concern to e learned judges who tried the cause, and used them to hesitate; but they finally acnteil tho arininient of tho counsel for the sj ate iiiid held that these officers were iiica- pi ,l)le of making or of ratify lug such a cun- c< ict; that this power rested solely in the Lestature, which body had, with great prompt- Ic jss, taken the proper steps through the O urts to annul the sate. is Hail the Legislature of Illinois withheld ac- m m, or acquiesced In the sale, and a fortiori, ni id It contirmed the sale, the title of Dela- tl hi would have become good. Or had the ti >nds passed from Dolafield to a bona Jiilc II jlder without notice, the liability of the D ate would have been fixed. From 1KG.3 to oi Vi the State officials of South Carolinu ei sued bonds under the various acts of the ti . glslature, and placed them in the hands of si e financial agent. In the management of If ese bonds, these officials and the Legisla- cl re not only acquiesced, but the latter body,- si i the representatives of the sovereign people, the Validating act, declared their Issue ^ular and the bonds valid; and,again in the ei msolidation act, recognized ihcm as valid r< nidations of the State. h In 1874, shortly after t he funding had been w immenced, under /iclj December 22, 1873, tl ic Legislature was informed by Senator o unn's committee that a large number of a >nds In the hands of Klmnton had been hy- f( >thecated after the time allowed by law,and o Mice should not be consolidated, and that c ilto a number of coupons, tendered or about n i bo tendered for that purpose, were not ti ilid against the State. The legislature took e 3 measures to prevcntthcconsolldatlon.and ic attorney-general declined to Interfere. si l'AYMENT OK INTEREST PRECLUDES DE- 11 FENCE. * In March. 1S7.">, In deliberating upon the ti lilress for the removal of Treasurer Cardozo, j, ho was charged with Issuing Consolidation i imds for tho securities which are now iin- j cached on the same grounds for which they v ere then assailed. the whole subject under- j ent a full investigation before the Legisla- j ire. The address for his removal was re- [ tcted by the vote of the wisest members of r mt body, and he was directed to procecd to | jnsolldute the outstanding bonds and cou- h ons which It is now alleged should not have een consolidated- Accordingly he did projed, and Issued in lieu of such vouchers a t irger number of Consolidated bonds than v ad been issued before; all holders of those jcurltlcs being more willing to avail them- n Ives of the act, because they regarded the t isult of this trial as puttingall questions un- v er the net tinuliy m resu xaxes were promptr levied to pity the Interest on the Consollnted debt, and the interest was regularly aid up to January 1, 1877. In Garrett vs. Van IIorne,7 Ohio State > :ep., 327; In Burroughs on Taxation, See. I 18, et Sic., and in other authorities and c ises, the doctrine is laid down that, payment e f Interest by taxation on bonds Irregularly t isucd precludes defences denying the power 2 j issue. Again, the State received and enjoyed the t ro^eeds of the sale and hypothecation of ' lese bonds now Impeached. Doubtless her t flicluls and her financial agent did squander c nd misappropriate much of the money thus H llscd on bonds but this Is a matter between ic State and tier officers and agents, and t in not and ought not to affect the holders for e alue of her securities. * The "Reconstruction" bonds and stocks ? uthorlred to be consolidated amount to <1 >,385,100. consolidated at 50 per cent, gives * {,( 1)2,550. From tlie proceeds of the bonds 1 jld and hypothecated the financial agent dscd 83,402,127 3!i, which exceeds the 1! hole consolidated Reconstruction debt by c (09,577 39. r repudiation impossidi.e. j The consideration of these Consolidation N ouds wuh therefore good and valuable. Can c ic.State, retaining the money, be admitted \ > impeach the bonds 7 A principal cannoi c jpudlate the Illegal acts of his agents and at c 10 same time retain the benellt thereof. The ^ tate cannot now deny, nor could she ut any me have denied, the right of her ueent to l ledge or to sell her bonds while holding on n ) the money raised thereon. An offer to re* t irn this money would boa condition prece* c ontcsseutial to any steps to repudiate or to t nnul the sale or hypothecation. This alio t as never offered, nor docs she now propose j > do so, and henee she must stand by these t lies and pledges. So suys the Supreme Court r the United StAtes in Pendleton County vs. s iny, 13 Wullace, 297. (i The financial agent made a settlement with r le State under and by virtue of an act u iisscd for that purpose, and a balance wns t :ruck In his favor showing over 8134,000 s > be due him, which was another significant t 2t of acquiescence ill and approval of his c lies and hypothecation; Hnd if he had any <j olen coupons, clipped from bonds or otherlse, his right to them was recognized in this ittlement. lly the Consolidation Act and Its repeated d udorscmcnt and full acceptance, a final t :ttlcinent and adjustment of all vexed ques- d oiiB touching the bond debt, of the State b as apparently effected; and, in the opinion a r her bestcillzens, was attained with marked e ocuniary advantages to the State. Ily this s ljustnicnt the debt was reduced to an t nount less than existed prior to 18CX. Of le morals or the mono or its reduction we r re not to speak, but only or the fact. c conic In anil out or the State were now n efly and confidingly Investing In these new n icuritles. 'l'lie consols were thrown upon u le market, and the rich and poor, trustees, t mritable institutions, and men or all avoca- t ons, purchased them, contidlng in the good c Ith of the State pledged on the face of each e jnd, and the strung guarantees of the o Jt. v That faith and that contract the Jaw will JJ st permit the State to violate for any of the e isutllclont reasons alleged in the defence of t icse suits. p The aforesaid nets of acquiescence, waiver 0 id continuation, in our Judgment, estop the v ate, and preclude the defence she now sets ;> to these suits. t' n. ? That the Act of December 22,1873, creates h contract between theStatoand every holder ^ any of her securities named in that act e ho hus accented the terms thereof, whereby, j,, i consideration of mutual advantages,a com- e jsltion of their claims was made wliich is a ml and conclusive. The third section of c lat net declares that the bonds and ccrtiti- c, ites of stock therein authorized to be issued e hould bear upon their fuec the declaration ri ,at the payment or the interest and the re- j, -mption of the principal nre secured by the w vy or an annual lax or two mills upon the a >llar upon the entire taxable property or the 0 ate, which declaration shull be considered 0 contract entered into between the State and n ei-i/of said bonds and stocks." jf The .ith Section declares that all "coupons e' >on the bonds, and the interest orders or id certificates or stock herein authorized to : issued, shall be received in payment of all xes due the State durlug t he years in which icy mature, except for taxes levied for the ibllc schools." V NATUKE OF THE CONTRACT. That this legislation constitutes a contract a hlch the State Is not at liberty to violate Is h t at rest by repeated decisions of the Su- tl etue Court of the United .States. tl The tirst Is the case or the State or New d :rsey vs. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 1(H. In this n ,se it is, as it was In the case or Fletcher vs. 1^ :ck, and In later cases, held that the clauso tl U1U 1 LU IUJI1 ui |>UU U II1 tUU OUIU'S ir I *? biting States from passing billsof attainder a ffost/arlo laws, and lawslmpalrlng theobli- u ition ofconiracts, applies as well tocontracts which a state 1h a party as to contracts be- C rven individuals. v In Woodruir vs. Trnpnntl. 10 Howard 190, tl ?clded in 1850, it was held that the provision b an act of the Legislature of Arkansas tc lartcring a hunk that the bills and notes of C ie bank shall be received In all payments of c< ;bts due to the State, constituted a contract C 'tween the State und the holders of these n >tes which the State was notat liberty to tl eak. w In the case of Furman vs. Nickol, 8 Wall, ,|decided In lsas, a similar decision was d ade as to the bills of a bank chartered by p ic Legislature of Tennessee. A number of tc her eases from the same court might, be tl ted in which analogous principles arc held, tl it it is enough to refer to but a single other, tl id that is the case of Warner vs. Stoll et at bi oiu thisState, in which the Supremo Court ' the United States has made a like decision gl niching a like provision in the charter of w ic Hank of thestate of South Carolina. It The Consolidation Act Iwos an adjustment fc compromise ollered by the State to the w ilders of certain carefully enumerated out- tl anding stock, bonds and coupous, that lfih ley would surrender these securities to be I tl neelled, the State would Issue to them, in n Ml tncreoi, ai me raie 01 miy cuius on mc n dliir, new bonds with guarantees that did tl )t attach to those surrendered, to wit; the c< larantees set forth alone In sections 3 and 5 the act. c< Kacli holder of one of the designated seen- tl ties who accepted the terms of the act, n icrehy entered Into a solemn compromise Ic id ;tlrm contract with the State, founded pi ion a good and valuable consideration, und tl Ending upon the State. vi SUltltENDEREU SECUKITIES. Of the securities thus Invited to be surren- C red, 84,(151,517 15 consisted of old bonds nnd bi cwks, the validity of which was never ques- w oned. vi Of the Conversion bonds. S5,9f>5,000 were re- a idlated as void : bnt of the balance of the b< ^construction debt, carefully enumerated by tl nounts and classes, In the act, aggregating ,835,100, inearly If not quite all had boen II lestloucd, as has been shown, by suits In si urt, l?y acts of the Legislature, reports of w nunlUee, and through the public press: v< id questioned, too, upon the grounds set tl rth In the report of the Eond Commission w id In the answers to those suits. In this vi million of doubt as to the ultimate deter- c< Iiiutlgn ol tin questions Involved,and witty U ill knowledge of the factp, the net of Decern- ell srKd, 1H7U, was passed, wliercln the State pe roposedto her creditors therein enumerated of ic terms of compromise contained therein, or he consideration offered to the bondholders tn as a security, as was supposed nnd Intended, wj nquestloncd and unquestionable,with high guarantees, at fifty cents on the dollar, In Ml (change for a security whose validity has ] i?en assailed, i The consideration moving the State was the .G ductlon of heroutstandlngliabilltles toless . urn one-third of its original amount. ce MUTUAL OAIN. "tl The effect of the compromise was mutual by \ln to the parties In Interest. The State J?e lined in greatly reducing the volume of her L'bt, and thccredltor gained In recelvlngase- 111 irity of a higher grade though less in mount, butof unquestionable validity. }nl "If a compromise of a doubtful right is fair- 1,1 made between parties, Its validity cannot J?1 spend on any future adjudication of that ght. And where compromises of this sort g* re fairly entered Into, whether the tincer- J'1 duty rests upon a doubtof fact,or adoubt In }-H alnt of law. If both parties are In the same J"' inorance the compromise Is equally binding 111 ml cannot be affected by any subsequent In- "c estimation anil result." Story's Lq. Jur., ec. 129 to nil. and cases thereclted ; Cann vs. yp unn, 1 p., W jii. TJ7 ; Stapleton vs. Stapleton, J-1' Atk.. 10. in Ti, ,.D I VM SU(\ TjlPft Al. mlcy "ays: "If parties will with lull knowi- J10 Ige of the doubts and <11 fllcnIticKas to their Ju gl?t-?t act upon them, though Itturn out that riegain a great ail van tape. If the argument Pr as fair and reasonable at the time. It shall be J;1 hiding." t>> In Durham vs. 'Waddllrigton, 2 Rtrob. Eq. is, It was likewise lieid, following the lanuuge of Storj\ that "where a compromise of v" doubtful right Is fairly made between the [irtles, whether the uncertainty rests upon a Dubt of fact, or a doubt In point of law, If ry. 'th parties aro In the same Ignorance the ' >ii!Dromlse is equally binding and cannot be Iccndby any subsequent investigation and llf suit." Other eAses equally as strong and perhaps J" lore applicable might be referred toand clta-llo. ons made t.'ierefrom did space permit. We| mmerate soipe of them : Exjpnrte Lucy, 21 "J1 ng. L. and Eq. 100; Union Bunk of George- 01 ?wn vs. Geary, 5 J*ct.!?!); llarlow vs.Ocean Inirance Company,:f Mlt., 270. It makes no diirerc.">cc that we are dealing ? 1th a contract entereti into by a sovereign tUte. INstate same a3 individual contract. m Contracts of States are measured by the of imc rule and governed by the same prlnei- to les of law as control the coDipromlses u,,d f? ?ntracts of private Individuals. I* In the Murray vs. the City Council of Char- bo iston, SOT. 8., 4.TJ, a recent case, tt.oSupreme ai ourt of the United States says: "The truth be , Suites and cities, when they borrow nl ud contract to repay with Interest, are not itlng as sovereignties. They come down to W >e level of ordinary individuals. Their cod- w acts have the sumenieanlng as that of slmar contracts between private persons, re lence, Instead of there being in the contract bj r a State or city to pay a reservation of a sovrclgn right to withhold payment, the con- co act should be regarded as an assurance that wi ich a right will not be exercised. A prom- bj ie to pay* with a reserved right to deny or pr tiange tho effect of the promise, is an ab- th .irdlty." hi lly Section 2 of the said fAct It is enacted pi' That the State treasurer Is hereby authorize A J to receive from the holders willing tosur- rn ;ndcr tlie same all the coupons upon thebonds ui efore mentioned, which have accrued, or pi ill accrue, on the flrst of January, 1874, and af he Interest orders upon interest due upon ui ertillcates of stock u-s aforcsajd, to the date in foresaid ; and shall thereupon, In exchange ce >r and In lieu of such coupons and Interest &< rders so surrendered, iisuc to said holder* hi Diipon bonds or certificates of stock, as they Is lay desire, equal in amount to fifty percen- fo li 111 of the face value of the coupons or inter- tt st orders so surrendered." cc The Legislature had been Informed of the w ovcral matters which, it was alleged, affected ce he validity of these coupons, and which were e< ubsequently stated In tlie Dunn report; but: T everthcless, that body made no dlscrlmlna- fe Ion between the bonds and coupons, and the rcasurer was required underfevere penalties gi a consolidate all coupons maturing before ii anuary 1st. 1874, ns well as the bonds to ?i: riiicli they were attached or from which they a lad been clipped. In the work of consollda- H Ing these coupons the treasurer, in 1875, was b nterrupted by the aforesaid address for his ol ctnoval, but the Legislature after mature de- (" Ihenitlon ordered him to proceed and he did H o. tl The Consolidation actlsa compact and com- st romisc?a contract between the State and c? he holders of bonds Issued In exchange for P ouehers enumerated in the act. b' Tills contract the courts are bound to recog- 11 117.e and enfojee: nnd r.ny attempt at leglsla- w Ion designed to alter, vary or violate thesame ol kouli'. he In violation of See. 10, Art. 1 of the v Constitution of the United States. ?: III. ai w These Consolidation bonds are negotiable tl nstruments, and In the hands of bona tide ()i lolders for value before maturity, if Issued by ompetent authority, are unnffccted l?y, and u xenipt from inquiry into, the circumstances Qi inder which they were put in circulation, h Dan. Negotiable Inst. Sec. 1502. j; Suites enjoy tiic rights and incur the liablli- n les of individuals when they deal in com- p nercial paper, and such arc these coupon c< >onds, so much so that In a recent New York b -ase coupons are held to lie entitled to days of s ;racc. 8| In Murray vs. tho City Council of Charles- j on, IW U. S. 432, it 1m said : "WhenStates and $| ities borrow money and contract to repay It u vltli Interest, they are not acting aa sover- ii Ignties; they come down to the level of or- p Unary individuals, their contnicts have the ft ainc meaning as similar contracts between tl >rlvate persons." . tl Under the law of commercial papers or ne- t< pitiable Instrument* we are at a loss to per- n :eive how these Consolidation bonds are ob- n loxlors to any of the defences alleged against cl hem by the State. If they were issued by p wmpelent authority, being negotiable in- H| xrumcuts, they are In the hands of Inno- d sent holders for value before maturity and ht vithout notice, exempt from Inquiry Into the S| Ircumstanccs under which they were put In irculatlon. City of Lexington vs. liutler, 14 Ci Vail, aw. cl Were they Issued $y competent authority ? ? )iil the treasurer who Issued llivin have tl authority to do so and bind the Suite there- n ly ? If so, their validity cannot be question- 0 d. The purchaser is not bound to look fur- d her than to asoei'laln thin fact. He need si rnco the title no further than the act em- h towering and dlrectlug the treasurer to Issue ci hem. h< In the Floyd acceptance cases the United n Itates escaped the payment of the accepted Irafts solely upon tfie ground that Floyd had ? 10 authority to hind the Government by the f? ccoptancos. The Court says: "Itecurrlnjj to ii he written law as the conclusive source of w uch authority, we may confidently assert hut there is no express authority to any "HI- h er of the Government to draw or accept bills w if exchange." it THK BONDS VEliE PROPERLY ISSUED. Hut how Is it in tho case of these C'onsoll- m lution bonds? The treasurer Is not only jiuhorlzed to Issue the bonds in lieu of certain ? lesignated securities upon their surrender, h nit is commanded to do so under severe pen-1 I ties for refusal. Tills authority is clearund !j xpliclt, and Is all that a purchaser ol' a Con- ,< olldatlon bond would desire to sec lu in ves- ,, Igating the title of a bond. f> The bonds enumerated in Schedule 5 of the eport of the IJond Commission, and acknowl- ri dged to be valid, were issued by tho same i, gents, under the same law, and by the sonic uthorlty as those In Schedule 0, which are ti llcgcd to be Invalid, and the same oflicer of D ho State, under the same law, is continuing F he work of consolidation, should the pur- T haserof Consolidation bonds see lit. howver, to go furtlicrin his Investigation of title, tl nd examine the records of (lie treasury, he w rill there tlnd that the bonds he intends to r< urchase were duly and regularly Issued in w xchange for vouchers expressly named in n lie act as proper 10 uu eAciiungeu. rtomgner 11 m>of of the validity of tho bonds could t?e c< eslred, and the purchase Is accordingly mnde e< ,'lth the utmost confidence in Its safety. C( Bui it is contended for the .State that, ni- d hough this be true, yet the securities ex- ai hanged arc no securities at all, though t< umed in the act; that they were really not tl hiding on the State, and should not, have ei een authorized by the act to be received in ti xchange for Consolidation bonds. It is now ii do late to raise this objection. The (State is cl stopped by the act. With great pains and tl ccuracy the Legislature designated the se- tr urlties to t-e consolidated, and peremptorily tl ommanded the treasurer to issue bonds in xchange therefor. This action, It must be 111 lunembered, was taken in the face of theob- ti ctlons against the securities to be fumlcd ti hich are now so strenuously urged. The fi ct leaves to the treasurer no discretion or pi ption, but is mandatory, and imposes on that n Ulcer duties purely ministerial. So It cannot b< ow be objected that any of these bonds were ai isued without authority or by an Improper si xercise of authority. di sc THE BONDS UNIMPEACHABLE. bl An improper exercise of authority could lily occur In knowingly receiving in ex- Bi liangc for Consolidation bonds vouchers not irluifcrt In the act. If upon examining the ct he llnds tho securities tendered to bo mong those therein directed to be funded, tl Is duly Is to make the exchange. No dlscre- P' on is left him. But suppose by the terms of t> ic act the treasurer eould act Judicially nnd al ntfirmi no u'hnlli#?r vntifliorMf f?iul<*rrol flinmrli fll nnicil in the net, arc vnllil or Invalid, Clear- in hi? Judgment upon the <jnewtl<?u Is tlnal. us ni lerc Is no appeal, and the Consolidation m onds Issued by hi ni becomes, In the hands of tli n innocent holder for value without notice, ci nltnpeachable. ct Should he err In h Is Judgment and Issue a m onsolldntion bond In exchange for invalid P' ouchcrs, how Is that to impair the bond in 11 ic hands of un Innocent holder? Who Is to tli e the loser, the .state who confided this work 15' > Its servant, or the Innocent purchaser? b< Icarly the State must sutler. She having te inferred upon the treasurer authority to issue onsolldat ion bonds, cannot as against an In- di ocent holder for value other bonds, deny rt tat the authority was conferred, or that It w as improperly exercised. fu In Knox vs. Asplnwall. 21 How. 510, the w efence of the county against the suit of the *e lalntltr was that the bonds were authorized th > bo Issueil only upon a vote of a inalorlty of le voters of the county after duo notice or ic time and place of the election, and that ' lis due notice not having been given, the vc onds were Invalid. th It was a fact that due notice had not been er Iven, and the Supreme Court says: "Tills b< ould seem to be decisive against the author- dc y of the board to Issue the bonds, were it not th >r a question that underlies It, and that Is, In ho Is to determine whether or not the elec- cc on lias been properly held." The Court fo olds t hat It was for the board to determine th int question, and that their decision could bj ot be called In question "after the authority ail ad been exerted, the stock subscribed and k< ic bonds issued and in the hands of inno- se jnt holders." race (Ho, in In C'oloma vs. hives, 02 U. 8., 48, the as- sa jrtalnment of the condition precedent to U< le Issue of the bonds, to wit: a vote of the th lajorlty of the legal voters of the town, was ' tdgod in the Town Council. In resisting the an ityincutof the bonds, the Council contended th lut they had been Issued without such a co cite. The Supreme Court hold that by the bo :t of the Legislature the authority todeclde be lis question was conferred on the Town n? Duncil, and that body having issued the J? raids and put them on the market, the town l>r as estopped from proving the want of the lb ote, in a suit by nbonafldr. holder. That was In question for the Town Council, and that m ody having decided iu favor of the Issue, wl icir decision was final. m In Jilssell vs. the City of JefTerson, 2-1 vt ow. 288, the city council was authorized to al lbscribe for stock and Issue Itonds upon the in rltten petition of three fourths of the legal cr oters. The city council made the subscrip- W on and Issued the bonds when, as it after- do ards appeared, three fourths of the legal sp oters in fact had not petitioned, yet the city <Jc >uncll having deeldou otherwise and issued ' ie bonds, tho Court would not admit ttie ou Ip*# * ? i ? i :y to prove that three fourths had not so mucl ll tloned; they refused to'udinlt the evidence consl the fact, rind held t hut tlie proper authority of tl ider the act, to wit, thejpHy council, were woul e judges of the fact, tnd their Judgment men is final. f as ai ro the name effect I? the case of Moran vs. Wt laral County, 2 Black?, 274. has t BONA FIDE HOLDER!" MUST NOT STTFFEH. [n Mercer Co. vs. Hacket, 1 Wall, 83. evl- nie | uce was offered to show that the bonus had RVnll en Illegally Issued, that the condition pre- \y0jj 'Ia?? Kn?l nnf hnon pnmnllnrl with, nnd f.hnt lie bonds were procured from the county /raiul and v)i*rrpre*enta'ion," but the evl- Ob] nee was ruled out. On appeal the Supreme to w mrt nays: "The bonds declare on their face flnan nt the faith, credit and property of the Aftci unty Is pledged under the authority of cer- Bone In acts of the General Assembly, and Hint and < pursuance of said acts the bonds were testli ;ncd by the commissioners of the county, use t icy are on their face complcto and perfect. mltt< hlbltliiK "<> defect In form or substance,and Comi e evidence oll'ered Is to show that the /eel- Is 110 Is on the bonds tire not true; not that no Com: w exists to authorize their Issue, but that had e bonds were not Issued In pursuance of the limit ts of Assembly authorizing tlietn." struc though we doubt not the facts stated as to by tl e atrocious frauds which have been prac- short :ed In some counties In obtaining and Issu- that g these bonds, we can not agree to overrule with ir decisions and to change the law to suit it. ml cases. Such considerations "might have It c st weight In an application to restrain the to pi tie or negotiation of these bonds, but cannot time evail to authorize their repudiation after to p ey have been Issued ond have come Into forei e hands of bona tide holders." Page U8. But i riiesame rule of law is laid down in Meyers comj . The City of Muscatine, 1 Wall, 80-1; Gelkhe pledi . The City of Dubunue, 1 Wall, 210; Super- time sors vs. Schenck, 5 Wall, 781; Lyndevs. The largi ninty. 10 Wall, II; Commissioners vs. Junua- year: 91 U.S., 205. wliei In the County of Dallas vs. McKenzle the BETI neral doctrine is thus tersely stated : "A >lder of value is not afi'ected by any lrrcgarlties or frauds or unfounded assumptions authority on the part of the agents of the J."e wn or county." "n?1 Uy an unbroken series of decisions this doc- ""to Ine has become the settled law of negotia- aILn' e bonds putln circulation by towns, cities, unties and States. It Is a rule of law '" > { unded In the wisest views of public policy UP " id of fairness and Justice. With any other 1,1581 le prevailing, these negotiable instruments Diild be valueless in the market,and munlc- J"0 ; al corporations would be unuble to realize "Ola oney on them. Through the whole series nS'*" authorities on this point, from the earliest " ,eI the latest, the doctrine, Is clearly and uni- n*''s rmly sustained that, when the authority to ?b <ue the bonds exists, and the holder is a ln 03 mi fide holder for value, the bond is valid; *ert id that this rule of law Is ns applicable to "0,,t >nds of States as to those of inferior inu- n.?S,: clpal corporations. . 11110 The case of the State of California vs. wcr? 'ells, Fargo & Co., 15 Cal. Kep., 23il, bears co!1N Ith peculiar force upon the issues here in- y-1 lived, and we propose to close the list of Jatul feronceson this branch ol the cases In hand lr r Tree extracts from It. tl,e 1 [n iSSicertuin warrants were drawn by tlio "8. mptr.iller of the State, of which a schcdulo J??7 ?s kept, payable to the payees or order, and ,h"1 them endorsed In blanks, ond afterwards lor to Marsh 18,18.56, were all presented by e several h olders thereof to the Slate trcos- or ! er. and by hi m paid and discharged, and on lyment were delivered up to the treasurer. i"*v ftcrwards, before January 1,1858, the war- ?> j 11 ts were stolen fi?m the offlce of the trcas- m?r er. On January 'Si, 1S53. the warrants were " esented to the then treasurer as claims ;ainst the State, nnn entitled to be funded J1?'1 ider the act of the I.c/leiature of April 18, T,. entitled "An act to provide for paying Peiy rtaln equitable claims against the State," , } c. The treasurer, ignorar.' that they had J*"' ;cn paid and stolen, on the 38tli March, 1858, sued bonds to the defendants in exchange J 1'1 r the warrants In the form prescribed by ic funding act, the defendants giving re ipts for the bonds and surrendering the P'".1 arrants. In October, 1RVS, the treasurer assrtal ncd the true facts, demanded the surrcn r of the bonds, and on refusal, broughtsult. here was no averment or proof that the de- T. ndants knew the facts showing the fraud. , ? The Court held that the warrants were ne- l\ liable Instruments and In the hands of nn al??j mocent holder for value, could not bens- ^.ec<1 illed because of the larceny, nnd that "upon J'? proper case made the plaintiff might have led his bill to enjoin the negotiation of these ancl i?nds, Jtc., against the fraudulent holder or Liter party having nojustclnlm to them," is was done by theState of Illinois ts. Uela- to.P eld.) The Court says; "We do not see how lis can be maintained. The defendants . 11 cm to be In no greater default than Ihcoffl- "pr< . re of the State. From anything that ap- wer ears, they had what purported on Its face to ^(H1, b a Just and legal claim upon the State." w?r ecltlng the act, the Court proceeds : "There ,U( as nothing there to apprise the defendants , e r any objection to these warrants, but the J?88 cry proofs which the State Itself prescribed ,nT? s the proper uMiurnnce of their validity nnd v. uthentlcity, assured the holders that they ?rt" ere what tliey Imported on their face, and ,nS lat the Act of 185S provided for the funding r indebtedness of tills character. It M)U i said that the defendants were botiud to J,llu now the facts. We do not perceive the forcc ln,c f this suggestion, or why they should be rnfU eld to any greater knowledge tlinn the rcgn- SPC( iragcntsof the Stale, whose olllce and duty ,w.f was to ascertain the facts and protect the T.1,( ubJic interest. But It cannot be held that 11 P very man who deals ill State securities U nB.n onnd to search the books and records of the tate offices before proceeding to take an asignment of the claims against the State. We 1 0 not know that these books or papers are ,f ubject to public inspection, and If it were so, ^ J ; might lead to very embaruasslng results. , 1 this case It seems that the law had already , ri rcscrlbed a method of procedure deemed by ,)C.C self a sufficient protection an notification of ?;, lie claim, aud Hie failure of the ortlccrs of P'01 le government to follow the law ought not }R!J" > be turned to the Injury of the citizen, and " '.J lace the occasion of ruining him for belug |Vrv o wiser than those officers to whom this jf1, ass of duties Is especially entrusted. The clnnlnlt) iinnlliiii In ?n/>h skwoq Mint Mip Inea 1110 ionic/ full oil him by whose fault or contl- J"-\' cuce It came. The condit'on of Iho person J*"1 i possession would bo better under such a , , [ale of fuels." *y.1 After stating wliat would be the law In the so.1., ise of private individual*, the Court con- J-' ludes: "We see no difference between a ~?e Uite and indiv lduals, In the application of ~*n, lis principle. A State should be held to as ilj?u inch Justice and to as'strlct responsibility as JJ? ? ne ?if her own citizens in these matters of {"P? eallng and contracts. And It Is better that ie should be held responsible for the acts of r ' er agents than that she should reap the ben- ,."c tit# of fraud committed upon innocent per- Jll?. jus by those ageuts under covor and color of ^L ulhorlty." SJ Such Is the sound reasoning of the Court hlch adjudged the Slate of California liable [J'1, >r these bonds In the hands of a bona Jldc J??, older for value, though Issued for warrants P.*' hlch had been stolen from the treasury. *?r Stolen negotiable paper In the hands of an ?'" i noccii t holder for value before maturity and P?4}' Ithout notlco Is a valid claim acainst the 1 laker. This doctrine is a necessary incident ) commercial paner, and Is sustained by est authority. 2 Parson* on Contracts, page T1 iS! 1 Daniels ou Ncgatloble Instruments, fil. of b Against the views above expressed the cnu niinscl for Ihe State contend that the plain- viol lis are not entitled to the protection which Con ie law accords to Innocent holders of nego- regl able paper, because there can be no such trea ling as an Innocent holding of a voiil securl- exli ; which the law will protect, and that these to v Dials are void. cvlc Willie It Is true that a holder of a void seen- by t ty can derive no beueflt from the fact that Infc e became a purchaser for value beforo ma- clie< irlty, and without notice, wo cannot >00 thai lat the doctrine Is applicable to the present its < luintitrs. oho HE VOCCIIEBS CANffOT BE KESUBBCCTEK. It has not been made to appear that any of ce(|( ic surrendered vouchers, In exchange for bon hlcli Consolidation bonds were Issued, were be a >M, and, furthermore, (.'ousolldatlon bonds 0vci ere not all'ected by any infirmities which Ui iay have attached to the securities which full ave been surrendered and cancelled. Uythe j0 i nnpromlsc tendered in said act, and accept- pari i by the creditors of the State, theold bonds, plat jupons and certificates of stock have been ellvered up and cancellcil. They are dead, fron nd neither they nor questions appertaining puri > their validity can be resurrected. Thirdly, coul ic State entered into a new contract, found- wer 1 in a valuable consideration,and itsobilga- Ugei on. She cannot, therefore, escape by reviv- hap in issues from which the new contract lsdis- onil mrged and fiee. The State, therefore, In can icsc suits cannot avail herself of the uoc- larll Ine that the law will not atl'ord protection to lg n< le holders of said securities. tioii Hcforeclosing this branch of the case it ia> not. be Improper lo notice a question per- Tii nent to the rights of bona jUlc )>olders of T1 lesc bonds. None of them, It seems, gAve of tl ill value for them. They were pin-chased at clasi rices varying with the fluctuations of the wer mrket. Are they entitled to set lip thePe thlr inds against the State for their face value quit id interest? We hold that they are, and in tlie ipnort of this view we reply upon a reccut Act, Lfcislon of the United States Supreme Court debi :ttllng tills question In language clear, forcl- caui e and consonant \vltli hard sense and good Tl w. prei DNDS BOUGHT AT A DISt'NUNT HOT IJJVAlr p?t In A BVTK1). 1S73, In Cromwell vs. County of Sac, 00 U. S., 60, Jjon ic Court says: "We are of opinion that the C?u Lichaserof negotiable security beforematurl- l',e , in eases where he Is not personally charge- 8CCJl jle with fraud. Is entitled to recover Its full com nount against its maker, though he may < ive paid less than its par value, whatever coul ay have been Its original infirmity. We are u ivarc of numerous decisions In conflict with v|ciit lis view of the law : but wethink the sound- Stat view and the one in consonance with the b,)n' inunon understanding and usage of com- ''ul' tfrce, Is. that tlie purchaser, at whatever J10'11 ice. takes the benellt of the entire obliga- ?luv' on of tlie maker. Public securities, and ?*}* lose of private corporations, aro constantly 111 jctuatlng in price in the market, one day un(1 lng above par and tlie next below It, and ot- mo* n passing within short periods from one- W ilf of their nominal to their full value. In- mon :ed allsalesof such securities are made with ur/? ifercnce to prices current In the market. It ould introduce therefore, inconceivable con- an *! sion, if bona fide purchasers in the market "ie 1 ere restricted in their claims upon such celvi curltles to the sum they had paid for vnl4 em." cord FRAUD NOT SATISFACTORILY PROVED. So far we have considered the questions In- n?w lived ill these cases as if the facts alleged by ?-'d v e State to establish Infirmities In the vouch- ^ie s. In exchange for which the Consollnatlon Her inds were issued, were true : and have en- Will avored to show that even If such intlrmi- do. ,-s existed, they could not aflect these bonds the hands of the plalntill's wlio are inno- 'or,y nt holders for value without notice and be- "s 11 re maturity. The next Inquiry Is whether lion e facts alleged by the State are sustained see 1 ' proof,nnd whether the legal propositions preti Ivaueed to Impeach the bonds arc well ta- nlng ;n. The objections to the validity of these and veral bonds, both of fact and of law, set up the several answers, are In tho main the 1,U{"F me as nre advanced In the report of the publ did Commission, and we propose to review unt* em In the order therein set out. I'he coupons embraced in objections 1, 2, .1 id 4 of tne lteport aggregate and W< c charges In substance are, that these are lldit upons, some of which were clipped from havi mds that were never issued, others from the ^ >nds before they were issued, and a large The imber were coupons that matured before ares nnary 1, 1871, tip to which date the State; of ci omptly paid ail accruing Interest,and there- Conn re must have paid these coupons so matur- Th g. Bearing upon this branch of the case resol ueh testimony was introduced, a part of of Hi liieh is hearsay In Its character, to the ad- cepti lssion of which counsel for the plaintiffs Its >ry properly objects. An examination of and i 1 the legitimate testimony, and In fact the and i ;arsay as well does not enable me to dlscov- sect! satisfactory proof of tho facts alleged, mor< e are asked to infer these facts from certain to dt cumentary evidence, and by almcthod of Hon eculatlve reusoning adopted by tho Bond of th imm lssion. Com Dn examining that rcport(and the evidence 6hall i tlie trl(ilfl,i8 not bo strong, bccauso there If any < v ?? ?' ' ' f*fl83SWSPWS3SESI^H i there that Is purely hearsay,) we are t trained tosay that we cannotadopt some c iiese conclusions. A court of Justice t d not be warranted In rendering Judk- s t upon hypotheses and conjectures such 1 c Indulged In by the Commission. 1< i are constrained to say that the State ;o iillcd to furnish the Court with sufficient c fof the allegations touching these cou- \ ; and as we have seen already.such Is t aw that the facts, If established, would I l her nothing. State of California vs. r s, Fargo ?k Co., supra. f THE HYPOTHECATED BOXDS. t Icctlon 5 Is that a large number of bonds, < It, &!,10ti,Wi9, were hypothecated by the , iclal agent after the time allowed by low. a six months' patlentlnvestlgatlon by the r I Commission, with full power to receive , jonslder secondary evidence and hearsay j nony, and with access to and liberty to c hereportsof previous Investigating com- ? ?es, the strongest allegation which the e mission was able to make Is that "there t oviilnitrA within the knowledge of the i mission that these bond*, or any of them, ever been pledged within the time od by luw." In 1m most liberal con- . tlon the evidence ou this point adduced ic State amounts to no more, and falls t of proof. But the State having alleged , these bonds were not hvpothecated . In the lawful period, In bound to prove j Iocs not devolve upon the bondholders ' rove that they were pledged within the allowed, but ft does devolve on the State rove that they wero not so pledged, bediecan ask benefit from the allegation. e rnppose the facts were so, was It not as | jetent for the Legislature to ratify the < as for that body by act to extend the r In which toefiecta loan, as It did by en- > ng tne time from twelve months to two j it And has not the hypothecation, f isocver made,been fully ratified? i IKTION OK PROCEEDS IN RATIFICATION. ? e retention of the loan or proceeds of the : >;e Is the strongest act of ratification ; but J Validating act, the settlement with the ) iclalagent, the Consolidation act. and the in upon the charges agn'nst Cardozo, aro eta of ratlflcatlon. es It lie In themouthof the State retain- } he proceeds of tho hypothecation to set : lis defence? We think not. Rut again, : 9 hypothecated lionds could not be, or i not, redeemed, and being sold under . Iture, passed Into the hands of bona fide ers for value without notice. Surely , list their claims the Suite was without ice, a* \?e have seen in the State of 1111- ; vs. Dclafleld andothercases cited. * Jectlon 8 Is that some of the vouchers (change for which Consolidation bonds 1 ! Issued are a part of the second Issue of Is under Act of August a), 18#8, "to ; ?tlate a loan for the relief of the treasury," f which second Issue, the State alleges ; null and void, and should not have been ] oil dated. . lufficlent reply tothls Is that the Legls- . re thought otherwise, and so said express- J i the Act of December 'ii, 1S73, in which whole of the second issue then outstand- ' was directed to be consolidated. But , lng at the act of August 26, 1*68, we see . by its express terms the Governor was | iorlzed to borrow, on coupon bonds of the ( e, within twelve mouths from the passage J the act, one million of dollars. The ! ant to be borrowed is limited, and clearly power is conferred to Issue bonds untlr, sale or hypothecation, that amount of icy should be raised. The act can admit o other interpretation than that bonds d be Issued and sold until a million of nrs was realized, and of course the numof bonds necessary to this cud would dcX upon their market value. le recital In the first million of bonds nh wr>re ImriioiI nnder this act bclne calctl d to impair tliclr market value, a "second lion was Issued with less proii.dlclni reel, the object being to retire the flint i this second issue. Much the largest ; of the first issue was thus retired, and of both were left outstanding than was Icicnl to raJse a million of dollars. THE LAND COMMISSION. ie next objection is agnlnst both issues of Land Commission bonds, which the State L-esarovoid. She has received the proIs Of these bonds, and proposes to retain same. Sho next has, b v act December 22, forct*d the holders *?, surrender them tako Consolidation bo*ids In exchange efor attli7y cents on the dollar; and now .rely contends tiiat these she is not liable ay, because of alleged Infirmities in the lnal. >e two ground* r?pon which the surrenfd vouchers arc a*<al led are thattlie bonds e not issued to the Jand Commission as ilred by tin* act, and, second, that they e sold below par. )th objectionsare unavallfngto invalidate original Land Commission bonds, much to avoid the payment of the bonds issutd onsolidatlon thereof. Is further urged that the scJjeme of the nance of the Convention of IfftiS providlor a Land Commission, has not bei*n puri by those charged with Its' execution, t ordinance was not binding on the Le;*isre. The Convention of 1808 was an c:z rdlnary body, called in an extraordinary incr, by an extraordinary power, and fora ;lal purpose, vlx: to frame a constitution basis of reconstructing the State. jyond this special purpose It could not go. ossessed no legislative powers. This ordice is legislative, and, never having been mittcd to, and ratified by a vote of the pie, It acquired not the sanction of a law, , at most, could only bo regarded as ad>ry. But the Constitution of 18G8 was so tied, and so became the fundamental law he land. By It alone the Legislature is reeled. Its mandates and inhibitions must beyed. The bonds were issued under the of the Legislature and not under the Inance. The bonds, it is true, wrro not cd directly to the laud commission, but tnd with his concert and tho advice of the Ivory boprd, were placed In the hands of financial agent of tbo State to be ncgoL*d for the benefit of the Lund Commission. Land commissioner got the proceeds and ssted the same In lands, In the purchase of ch atrocious frauds were doubtlcse pcrpecd on the Stute. But she took the titles bene lands, many tracts of which she has i to purchasers. ros* irregularities are apparent in themannicnt of this important matter, but these not avoid the bonds. Between tho State her dishonest agents these matters must cttled, and, if loss there be, it must fall n the State rather thau the purchasers of bonds, who arc innocent of the frauds :tlced. All these irregularities were well >wn to the State's representatives beforo nassago of the Consolidation act. In ch all these outstanding Land Commlsi bonds were directed to be consolidated, lnd that act the State cannot now be adted to go in her efi'orts to impeach these ds. It makes no difference that the origlbonds may have been sold below par. this infirmity the old bonds. In the hands mioccnt holders, could not have beon (niched, (Illinois vs. Delufield,rum) aud surelie Consolidation bonds cannot be. REGISTRATION. II.' IlV.\t UUCUVC id Kil?? tUV nil IVUO i/nn<x n onds IsKiicd under tho several acta above mcrated. were put upon the market in atlon of Scetion 1*, Article IX, of the stltutlon, which requires that "a correct stry of all such bonds Khali be kept by the surer In numorclul ordor, ho im always to Ibit the number and amount unpaid, and fhoin severally made payable," This Ih lently a mode of book-deeping proscribed he Constitution for the convenience and irmatlon of the State officials, and as a ck and safeguard against th?mlschlcfs t might result from less precaution. But >bservance or non-observance cannot and uld not affect the validity of bonds Issued .he Shite. It. is a piece of clerical work ch must necessarily follow and not pre; the net of Issuing bonds. With It the dholdcr has nothing to do, and should not fleeted Injuriously by a duty not his, and r which he can have no control. lit even in this allegation the State Is not y sustained. The Journals of the treasury show a registry of these bonds In most ,, though not In the ?xact method contemcd by the Constitution, arising from the that tho bonds woro not sold directly i the treasurer's office and to Individual chasers, in which eveut a detailed registry Id and would have bean kept, but they e Issued en matte directly to tlic financial it, and to him they were charged In pers the only method practicable. Hut this sslon of duty-irregularity?1/ such It ho smlinrl?la n? wttll OA all nkhor irroiru ties oured by tho Consolidation Act. It otadcfect going to avoid tho Couisolldai bond*. ik constitutionality defence void. le lust defence of the State is that the acts ao Legislature under which the various ses of surrendered Touchers were Utm?d e not passed by th? constitutional lauds vote of the General Assembly, as re'cdluAittcle IX, Sections 7. lUaud 14 of Constitution, and that the Consolidation , In bo far as It attempt*) to make that a l which b?fore was void. Is Inoperative bcse not passed by a two-thirds vote, lis contention 1m res judicata. Tho snuc Court of the State In Morton, Bliss <fc vs. theComptrollsr General, 4 s. C? 430, idrll, 1873, before the Act, liccembcr 52, , decided the tlrst branch of fits proposlagainut the State. In toat Judgment the rt liolds that the several acts uuder which bonds were Issued whlbhhttve been eublently cousolldnted, were passed by the ititutional two-thirds vote until overruled impotent authority. This Judgment Ik rolling. Rights which have beeu acqulrinder the law of that case cannot be died now by Its reversal. It would avail the c nothing, so fur as theso Consolidation Js are concerned, to obtain a reversal of case; because both the State and bondlers have acted upon It as good law, and j entered into a contract which Its rever'iiii not avoid. ie HUlte Issued various clause* of bonds, throwing them upon the market, raised icy by their sale and hypothecation. >on these bonds I lie paid intercut and the ley raised upon them went into the treasor should have gone there, the Consolidation Act the State offered lducement little short of compulsion to ' bondholders to surrender them aud reel well guaranteed bonds at half their full e in cxchaugo for those surrendered. Aclngly large surrenders have been made, the vouchers now lie cancelled in the sury. Now she seeks to repudiate the consols for alleged defcctsof the concellouchers, .but makes no oiler to restore i money she realized on these vouchers, defence dues not stand the test of law. h its policy the Court lias nothing to to the defence that tho Consolidation Act, runt i)i 11 iwu-imrun vuit*, in vuiu iia nw inr creates n debt by making that tin obllga which before was not hucIi, we cannot he force of it. The act neither creates nor ?nd to create a debt. It is from begin to end a proposed scheme of settlement compromise of the outstanding bond of the SUite,and such being its avowed lose, viz : "To reduce the volume of the in debt," it needed not a two-thirds vote, was constitutionally cnactcd. ItlSDICTlOX OF THE COCKT OF CLAIMS. I 3 havo considered the question of the va* I y of the bond in suit,as If we were a court ng full power to consider and determine whole question, the entire matter at iuue. question referred to us, and the one we pecially created to decide, is the validity t rtain claws of Consolidation bonds, and not 1 olidation bonds generally. e Interpretation of the text of the Joint ution creating this Court by the majority ? members, Is, lu my Judgment, a iniscon- 1 on. 1 Jurisdiction is defined In Section 1 and 9, i appears to mo to be free from ambiguity, c too plain to admit of debate. The two a ons, when read together, mean nothing f 3 nor less than that the Court is created t itermlne the validity, not of C'onsollda- s bonds In general, but only those classes11 em reported to be iavalld by the bond t mission. Section 1 readl: ' whlcli Coun u i have Jurisdiction to hear ami determine 1 nr r/uex mndfi ut> or brousrht to letl ! < he validity of aur of the Consolidated bonds. ouponK and certificates of stock, or of any of lie various clause* of Uiern mentioned In tbe aid report of the Bo-i t Commission as resttig on vouchers not 1st aed luaccordance with aw and authorized to >e consolidated by the ,0t of the General Assembly, approved December 22. 1373, entitled "An act Co reduce t'le olurne of the public debt and provide for the my meut of the same,' and also as not Issued u accordance with law, and further deslg- f i uited and described In Schedule 6 of said re- I I ort." 11 Surely there is no room to misunderstand I I lie meaning of this language. If give* to the I I ;ourt unlimited Jurisdiction to determine the I [ ralidlty of those consolidated bonds, coupons .1.1 md ccrtlllcatcsof stock which the Bond Comnlssiou mention as resting on vouchcic vhlch were not Issued in accordance with aw, and which bonds, coupons and certificates of stock the Bona Commission arranged ind tabulated in Hchcdule 0. Section ? is iqually clcar and explicit, and provides that 1 j lie attorney for the State and for the bond- 11 lolders "may make up a case or cases to be I icard and determined in said Court, In which I f practicable, the .State shall be defendant, to Be I est the validtiy of the said Consolidated bonds ind coupousand certllicates of stock mentiond in said Schedule 6, bringing before the Court he various classcs of vouchers which it is alcged in the report of tho said Commission mpalr the validity of the said Consolidated >onds. coupons and certificates of stock, or lu v nf thoin THE QUESTION AT ISSUE. V] It Is clear that the Joint resolution creates a ipeclal court for a special purpose, and thul 8 to determine the validity of a well defined :lass of Consolidated bonds, viz: those pro* louncod by the Bond Commission to be inrnlld, and classed In Schedule 0 of their reK>rt. Beyond this limited sphere the Court nnnot go; hut for the ptirposeof deciding the validity of those particular bonds its powers ire ^sample and plenary as the Conrtof Comnon Pleas. There Is absolutely no restriction >f power within this lirffil. It is true the ,'ourt Is empowered and required tosuffer the .. itleanti to bring before it the vouchers upon AD< rhlch the Consolidated bonds rest. This naitcs evidence touching these vouchers exiressly admissible, when otherwise it might TTj lot have been so. But making it admissible loes not take from the Court the power and luty to determine its ultimate eftect upon the 4 ilugle question at lssuo, to wit: the validity of 1 ,he Consolidated bonds. I am at a loss, therefore, to understand how ,he Court has arrived at so strange a concludon as is announced In Its Judgment. That tnncluslon is that we arc appointed to determine not the validity of the Consolidation bond/ :oupons and certificates of stock, but the vaidity of the voucher! upon which they rest: and :hat if those vouchers are found to be ijivalid, j. ive are compelled by tin terms of the Joint |J< resolution to declare the bonds resting on ihem to be Invalid. In other words, that if we possessed the general Jurisdiction of the !2ourt of Common Fleas, we inluht go further, *nd determine the validity of Consolidation t>onds although resting on invalid vouchers, ind would he at liberty to pronounce them valid notwithstanding infirmities in tho vouchers. But no such power, it is contended. Is accorded this Court, which, should it And the vouchers invalid, is, ex ri termini of the |oint resolution, precluded from further inquiry Into the validity of the Consolidation bonds resting thereon. WHAT THE COURT HAS 1JSFT USDOSE. If this be the correct interpretation of the ? language of the Legislature the whole work ?| of that body and the labors of the attorneys for the litigants and of this Court are^abort-" ive. It leaves the main question, the one * which perplexes the Legislature, and which underlies t his great public debt quest ion, untouched, to wit, the legal effect of the Consolidation Act upon the l>ond debt of the State. Furthermore, it leaves the bondholders entirely free to renew this contention in aCourt w which will take cognizance of the question of "' the validity of the Consolidation bonds. Iam constrained to differ with my brethren In the construction placed upon the Joint resolution, and to dissent from the Judgment of the Court in the aforesaid test cases for the reasons above given. And I hold that I each of the bonds sued on Is a va'ld obllga Hon of the Slate ol South Carolina, as Is ev- I cry bond Issued in exchange for vouchers ex- 1 pressly uamed In thenct of December22,1373. * ' Suppose the debate upon the report of the Bond Commission hnd resulted In a proposed i comproini.se of the consolidated bo mix, coupons and certificates of stock designated nnd described In schedule 7, and that the holder* i of these consols, accepting the term* of th* coin prom inc. had surrendered thein, nnd received new consols at a further rcdHced amount. THE BON DA ABE VAtTD. Wonid any man contcnd that the compro- R mise was not binding on the .State? Could II the new consols, the fruit of such a com pro- U mlso, be sncessfully resisted by the State In a court of Justice? VTe hold not; and yet tlie Jiresent consolidated bonds occupy ground ust as unassailable. Thoj are varfid obllantlons of the State, and their payment she W cannot avoid on any recognized principles of ll law. She may csenpc through repudiation, but the law will lend her no helping hand in this Inst desperate resort. Could South Carolina be honorably din- P* charged from lb Is heavy debt and all others that burden her Impoverished people, no one *1 would rejoice more than I would. X h?ve, K throughout this trial, keenly felt th*-h?<vy ** responsibility resting upon me, and liar# ?ndeavored to discharge my duty as a Judge with an eye single to thu Jaw governing llic I case. 14 Better by far thnf the State should sn/Ter ? through a proper vindication of the law by JU her courts than that temporary rellof should m accrue to the taxpayers through its perversion; nnd If relief shall comc to h?* people k through the Judgment (if those wIUj whom I ? linve, with much dlrtid*no? and g"cat re?j?ect, differed, I will be most happy to acknowledge ff! my error when demonstrated before thcCourt Jl of lust resort. W I greatly regret that the Court has so construed the Joint resolution as to eschew and Ignore the only question which can settle the issue between the state and the holder* of _ her Consolidated bond*, vU: the force and M effector the Consolidation Aet. and has can- B fined Itself to the simple Inquiry as to tho in- fl flrmitles of the surrendered and cancelled vouchers. E It leaves the vexed question of the vnlldlty J| of the bonds In Schedule 9 ret intcara. J. H. HUDSON, Judge Co?#t of Claims. wl rvinmi.li a r n<><.?n<h*r hi i>n>) at STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA f County of Abbeyille. Wm.T. Mlllford, rialntlff, ) In the Court of agaliMt V f John W. Ellison, j Trial Justice. V Copy Summons for Money Demand?Complnlnt not served. , To John W. EllUon, Defendant in this action. \TOU are hereby summoned and required | to answer the complaint In this notion, 1 of which a copy Ik herewith served upon you, I and to serve n copy ot yonrHnswer on the I subscriber nt his otlice, at Abbeville Court I House, South Carolina, within twenty days after the service of ibis summons on you, exclusive of the day of service. If you ft?il to answer il:ls complaint within the Mine aforesaid, the plaintiff will take Judgment against you for tho sum of 807.01, with interest at the raie of 12J4 per oant. per A annum,on 32H.71 from the Mth day of Decern- A ber, ono thousand eight hundred and seventysix. and costs. w Dated the 25d day of Dotoinber, 1S78. LJJ SAM UK I, 0. CASON, Plaintiff's Attorney. To J. H". Etluon, Absent Defendant: TAKK NOTIOF?'That a copy of the complaint lurein fian been fll<xl tlilx day In the office of R. C. Hnrkness, Trial JustJoc for said County. SAMUEL C CASON. Plaintiff's Attorney. Dec 25,1S78, tf J. L. CLARE JS prepared to do all kinds ol Repairs on Clocks, g Watches. Jeweleiy. 1 CURAP FOR CA.1H. 0 At Lis old Stand on Main Street. His work is as good as that of any pCj watchmaker, and his prices are as low. bci (iive hiin a trial, and ho will give you satisfaction. *'j ABBEVILLE, S. C. in Sept. 18, 1878, 3m. Uo RICHARD GANTT, I 1 Cei FasMeoaWe Barkers HairDresser, ^ ABBEVILLE C. H. to. dol ALL work (lone neatly and In th? mast ap- p pioved style. Give me a call. Satlsfac- we; Hon Kinirnnteed. K. GA^TT. Dec. 4, 1673 ? w a mt17r a limited num. 1j >Y A n 1 IjU* ber of active, ener jetlc canvassers to encage In a pleasant and profitable business. Good men will tlnd this i nire chance t? make money. Such *111 t<iouuc> answer this advertisement by letter, Mii-losIng stamp for reply, stating what bust- Ij uess they have been encased In. None but hose who mean business need apply. Address FINLEY, HARVEY & CO., M Oct. 2, 1878, ly] Atlanta, On. otli PR Stoves! Stoves!Stoves!!! :o. Cook Stoves from $2.00 toSH.OO all warraited o give entire ?atls(hctlon, or money refunded. iVemnke the ubove Prices for December Only. Wo also otter a largo lot of Lamps at very T_ ow prices,from fifteen cents upwards. A No. stand Lamp for twenty-nve cents. o?r T. irk-e for No. 1 Kerosene oil 1b twenty-live JL jents per gallon or Ave gallons for one dollar, j Als ill tho above arc cash prices. We will say ! ani or the benefit of citizens In other counties! hoi hat our 810 dollar stoves are No. 8 stoves, I stoj mch us we sold a few years ago for S36. We I ~ lave an over stock for this part of the State! Wl ind to reduce our stock we are willing to iU ^crltlce some of them. II, W. LAWSON A CO. I NOV a, 1873 TRY HOME FRSL ?? CONGAREE rt WORE olumbia, 8. O. H mi, PROPRIETOR. REDUCED PRICES; ERTICAL CANE MUXS, List of Prices 2 Rollen, 10 inches diameter, W5 09 2 " 12 " " 46 00 2 H H " " 55 W 3 " 10 ' M ?10 3 " 12 " 74.00 - . v' 3 " U " 80 00 jye prleeicomplete with Frame Wlthoa Frame, 310 lens on each Mill \ 3RIZ0NTAL?3 Boiler Mill for Steam or Water Fower, $150. V '* '* . "i Onnrl Vnnn Andmifl Tn* OGiiU 1UU1 UlUDlfi M ane Mills AND Syrup KettlegT TO D. B. SMITH, Agent. AbbcTlUe CH,8C Emporium of Fashions. e now offer tbe largest and moat ?ttmUT? STOCK OP Cloal?sf RESS TRIMMINGS, and nil tbe ovra QF TEE SEASON - ' T 4J i bo fmind in Ab'-Kiville, at bottom ioea, at MP8RIUM OF FASHIONS. ^RE making largo additions tu Ut?tr ITOCK OF MILLINERY -AND? icy m ateh Ik rcryaUrnatfre and prien \VW. Call ouco and get BAHG AllfSf lft IATS, TIES, RUFFLINGS, it nimmc on Lists Ml J. Kb. R. M. HADDON * CO. Dot. 1<* 18T8. Can now show to friend# SPLENDID STOCK OF [illinery, Notions, Hosiery, Gloves, Ties, I Cuffs, I Collars, I AND ' [ A IT D EE E CHIEFSl Ko have in connection ress-Maki ng Department i ere a ltd/ oia lave a dress tuado or eat a^B ort noticc. m PATTERNS FOR SALE. U >ct. ?, 1870, tf favlne hud ton years experience as aliquJH iter, and being familiar with nil the brand^B ildes having a practical knowledge of *hB iholce, he is fully able to supply ail ml <li a pura article ithor as a beverage m fiBK dlcinal purposes, of nnjrihlBK they drM^H his lino of goods, which consist or tl^H lowing: HE e Whiskey, Port Wino. LirlMin Whiskey, Madeira Wine, HW3 ii, (sweet and sour Sherry Wine, iash.) Malaga Wino, staliizedCorn, Catawba Wine. H9 E. Rum, Hctippernong W ine, itennial Rum, Claret Wine, I Crow Whiskey, Lincoln County Whs^H ootoh and Irish Whiskey, fine impotr^^H i. Champagne, French Brandy. he above {roods will be sold In qaantiti^^H ;ult purchasers, at prices from two to tcflfl larsagulloa. artfes desiring Christmas supplies will^B| li to give me a call. A^BEQUEST^B ^resh SupplJ old and Silver Button? a ESS GOODS In ?* styles, BLACK A^H 1 l'ACAS. l'rsMi- hwrrs. Millinery or stylish Koods Just rec?lvod at very LO^H| ICE? at the B| EMPORIUM OF IASHI0NS. ov 13, 1878 AlSTOrtoUSE. 1878. I 'he Misses Cate^H \KE pleasure in announcinpto old fricr^^B and putrons that they t?tlll k< cp "l^^H ton House" o]>en for their uccon>odftti^H| I will endeuvor to nuike them "feel^^H nc" as often as they are kind enough^^B P. Marshall P. DeBruhM Attorney at Law, ifl AiiliJ'JVlLLE C. U. S. C.