Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

mmmmm ctww ?m r. ? ? ??* ^ The Press and Banner, Wednesday, Oct. 8,1879. The ' Register,*' (lie ('oiiipfroIUT-ttYncral, and (he Railroad ''Taxes of Last Year." Our neighbor of the Register lias replied to our article of last week whirl1 was in reply In the lUtrnwcll I'eonfe. Tlu articles of the licgisfer show that the < itor is confident of liis position, and th< > maimer of expressing his opinion "lisv linguistics him as one of (ho old styh Carolina gentlemen, who never forgot u be polite?even t<? an adversary. Tin. bearing of the Register in this matter liabeen that of the high-toned journalist, who, without drawingon Ins imaginativr genius for ill-mannered remarks, relic* solely upon the supposed justice of his cause. The Register gives some very interesting statistics as to the valuation in tlx different counties, but which information is not at all pertinent, from the fact thai ho assume^ the valuation of properly ni 1878 to l>o correct. Tlie lad is, because <?: the inequalities of assessments, ami t!:i action of the old Kadical Hoard, tin; l'oinocratic Legislature in 1877 resolved tc have a new assessment in the following year, to correct the evils which had been fastened on us since 187-5'or 1*7-1. Tiio assessment which ho speaks of as that o: 1878 was really the assessment of 187;? oi 1874. By the act ol'1877 the new assess ment was made for 1878, for the express purpose of correcting the almscs b which wo had been subjected by tin Kepulilicans; but by the act of the Stalt Hoard of Equalization, the old evi was restored, and it seems that tin licyixtci' would perpetuate it, or rathei excuse the .State officers for their on precedented attempt to continue in lbr?*< an evil which the act of the Legislating in 1877 was intended to abate. Tlie re turns of Abbeville County were givei under oath. No sophistry, >r philosophy or beautiful reasoning, can convince oui people that the Hoard knew uioreof tin value of tho lands in Abbeville Counlv than we did> or induce our tax-payers t< un-nrn Plkdlv fn till value of their lauds. Not one-fourth o our lands will bring the assess<?l value, i put up at auction. With these facts before us, it will require even more tli.m theartful logic of our friend to change our views. The Jtcf/lntcr\s ground-work as to the Radical assessment which held over to 1S7S is not sound, and the whole superstructure of his argument falls. We do notadmit that assessment to he correct. It was one of tiioold evils from which wo prayed the Legislature to relieve us, and which the law-making power attempted to remedy. Tho Hoard in their wisdom, however, thought proper to perpetuate that evil, and it required another act of tho Legislature to undo their work. The 7ic;/istrr must show that the assessment of 1S?:> orlS74 was correct before any of his arguments will apply. Whilo on this subject, wo will be glad to ask tho Register a question, in the interests of tho creditors of this County, and if he will take tho same pains to answer this matter as ho has done to reply to those of last week, wo shall be glad to present it in full to our readers. Some time back the Railroad and sundry citizens of this County paid "last year's taxes" in bills of the Lank of the State. Afterwards the Treasurer was required to notify the citizens that unless t I ?it.linir nrnnori v would be sold. To all of this we have no objection, and have not a word to say, but what we want to know is, why the llailroad has been excused from redeeming their bills of tlio bank of the State. Our County Commissioners contracted debts on the faith of the taxes, and because the Comptroller-General chose t< favor tho Railroad, those creditors have been kept out of porbaps ? I ,.">00 fori whole year?some of whom have been forced to soil their claims at greatly reduced prices. We would be j;Iad if the licgisler will cito the law authorizing such discrimination, and at the same time furnish arguments to sustain. an executive officer in oppressing the poor to earn ont a law while he is extending favors. U. those corporations which areablo to pay, We would also like to know if the Greenville and Columbia Railroad is a particular or snecial net of theComntroller-Gon cral's, or does ho cxcuso all Railroad.from paying taxes, or paying, does he allow tliein to do so in bills of the bank of the State while he soils tiic hinds ol the poor farmer if lie fails to pay hi.' taxes in greenbacks ? This matter is of official record, and we hope that our friend may be able t<i explain satisfactorily to the credifors ol this County why the Comptroller-'?encral has kept them out of their money for a whole year. One thing is certain, wc shall ventilate this matter until the Comptroller-General has done what very plainly appears to be his duty in the premises, a The Greenwood and Augusta Railroad Convicts. In another column wo have copied remarks by some of our exchanges on tin subject of the treatment received by the convicts on the Augusta and Greenwood liaiiroiiu. it is umuu lor Mum: jiapi.wx u withhold expression of opinion when r grave offense litis been sommitted in their own localities. It is very easy t< make charges and indulge in high-llowu ahetoric at the expense of others, whei; we draw on our imagination for facts, The managers of the Greenwood and An gusta Railroad are gentlemen of higl standing in this community, and an much respccted by all \<-iio know theui personally. But whether they are ?oo< or bad men, it is contrary to our notion: of right and wrong to condemn citizen: before they are heard in their own de fence. It is sill well enough to call for in vestigation. That is perfectly right, am none are more anxious lbr it than the; are. At the investigation the entire fact: may be brought out, and then if the; warrant great effervescence of sympatn; for tho convicts, why then let it como hut let us not prejudice the good name o our best citizens before they are heard As for character, humanity and chris tianity wo doubt not the abused in thi instance, might stand equal to some c those who are so horrified at reports. We know that it is impossible for thi facts to be as bad as the reports would in dicate, and wo think the best element c tho country should suspend judgmcn until the real facts arc ascertained. A1 men are entitled to justice, even if the; should happen to be engaged in bnildin a railroad which is to greatly benefit th Western portion of the State. 'i'ne granu jury ay a cuuuumuv m mui bodj' a year ago examined and looked in to this matter, but their report, which ex onerated these gentlemen from blame lia never been published in open Court. Tli lessees have some rights in (he premise; as well as the convicts. Be just, Gentle men. We direct the attention of our reader to the card of the Directors of the Koa( published in another column. Excursions to the Fair. We hope the Railroad and tlje Fair an thorities will arrango for cheap excur sions during the Fairs at Greenville, An derson, Abbeville, Newberry and Col urn bia. "What is being done about it ? 1 the gate fees are reduced, and exeurs'ioi rates secured a big crowd will nttoni cach place. I J Rich's Kail l??tu<I Revelations. > j We had a call yesterday from Mr. ! John Kii-li, overseer <>1* :il 1 the? convicts i at work on the <? recti wood ami Augusta i llaili'i>a<l. Mr. Rich Iium liccn in the eiu,! ploy of tli'1 road ever since the com menvemeut of the work, and for sixteen I months has held the portion which he i now holds, lie is therefore perfectly conversant with all th<; facts in reference , to the treatment of Hie convicts. After .'soim* prt liiuiir'ry remarks, we asked . | him to make a tlalement concerning the ,iconvicts iio\v at work <?n the Greenwood . I and A ugusia Ua:ho:>.vl, to which lie ro. j piied: "We'd; I do not know v/lv.it informa, ti'in yon desire. J will answer any <jiic.s; tion von may ask."' | l<uc>t:on?I presume, Mr. Ri.*h, that. ' you have seen the coniincnts of the ; newspapers in reference to the treatment :lof tiie convicts now at work on thej : (Ire.*-11wood and Augusta Railroad, j Answer?Yes; 1 have seen what the ' Aout! <'nnrirr and the have ' I sail!, ami I pronounce their statements j '' in the main lint rue. ij <>. In what particular are they incur- j 1 *> A. I refer particularly to tlio incorrect1 ' ncss of tin- report, in connection with the f| statement that some twciity-livu or thir.: ty prisoners were relumed* to tho peuij tcntiarv last week. None of them were ' j blind or speechless when thev left camp, ? bul three of them were in a prostrate j I condition from general debility. The authorities <>) the road objected to the j sending of these three back to the peni"J t'.'Utiarv from the fact that they thought f, thev wen; unable to make the trip. . j When did you receive the last lot ! of prisoners? "I A. About the first of last April. JWhat was their condition ? >| A. Had indeed. Many of tliotn were , broken down, diseased and totally unlit " for service. Out o(" the seventy-live ! ' hands received at that time there were not 1 more than twenty-live irood hands. <;th,' ers did some work, wliiie a very eonsidJerable number did no work at all. 1 1 Ainosig this lot who d.id us jio good was j Mc'.orvey. We didn't want him back. >. Tlie Hoard of I 'irectors had done all they1 , .could to get him pardoned. He never i ! worked, and finally died of grief, "j About how many did no work? lj A. Twelve or liftecii of tint last lot did: no service at all. They never pretended i 'jto work, and about twenty-livo others i 1 have never earned their food. j ) I (v?. Who excused these men from serr vice; yon, or the physician ? I A. I did it myself. It was plain that I ! many of them "were unable to work. Jt I ! wasn't in them. I I'l Q. Did the convicts have suflicicnt j ( 'medical treatment, and proper nursing " i \\ li' ii sick 'j A. Yes; I?r, Thos. J. Mackee, one of i; the best physicians of ICdgeliehl ("ounty, ?I an old army surgeon in tho Confederate jservice, visited tho stockade duriny'i April, May and June. Since then the ' : stockade w^s moved. J >r. Merriwether, [ ijan excellent physician, now has charge I ! of the sick. I! o visits them twice a day. | ! TIh: sick are waited on by the conva-j jlescent convicts. Wo have plenty of j medicines. They are administered bv [a while man, whose duty it is to f?ive a| general supervision to the sick. ??. With what diseases are the convicts m<>ro generally effected ? A. 1 jxcejit tho chronic eases, there were I moro eases of diarrhea and scurvy than I anything else. There were a few cases j of fever. The scurvy was produced during the extreme dry weather, when it 1 was impossible to secure vegetables. We j were compelled to feed principally on dry peas, bacon, bread and molasses, j (J. Is it true that one hundred and j twenty-live out of two hundred have j died ? j A. No, sir. I can not however froiri I memory give the exact mortality. Jt i was very great, though. j (}. How do you account for that great I mortality ? | A. In consequence of so many diseased hands having . een sent to us from the I penitentiary instead of healthy and able ! bodied men. Some of tlie best workers j ') now on the road are of tlio lirst lot, who j were strong and healthy when tliev came ' to us, and haw done work continuously I from that time to the present. (j. Why did you not at once return the j diseased hands to the penitentiary? 1 A. Ueeauso the State authorities had [notified lis that tiiey would not receive! . t!iem back or exchange them ? j (J. It seems, however, Mr. Rich, that | 'you have just scut back a number, i How is this? [j A. It is truo that we have .just sent . j back a lot of our sick. The State author! ities made a special order in this instance, ' j which order had long been desired by the i| Railroad authorities. tj (j. What i-s the present physical condi! tion of the convicts? j A. Very good. We have now only ' i about fifty, all of whom are doing work > Ion the road, with a few exceptions. Three fj or four arc doing duty in cainp, cooking, 1 a-.. u'fl li'ivn lui ?ick iiiiw. ivivitiuii* .?!'? ----- 'ITwo in the vara are complaining, but tlioy are about able for duty. j (>. Have the Stuto authorities visitfed (j tlie stockade, and if so, how ottcn ? j A. They have been there lour times. I Colonel i'armclo was there in August, . 1S7S; Col. T. J. Lipscomb in August, , |ls7!t; l>r. "rezevant came a lew days i later, lie came, it is said at the suggestion of Colonel Lipscomb. I)r. l'opo came in Nvptcmber last. These are the .'only visits which we have received from I any State officials since wo commenced work. ColonclJ Parmele expressed himH self as well satislled. He gave us great upraise for cleanliness, prison nmnagej ment, and the condition of the hands, alj though the mortality was nearly as great [ j at that time as 11 has boon at any time '[since. Tiie other visitors made 110 ex! pression in my hearing. ! <1. JIow are tiie prisoners confined at j night? | A. They arc kept by shackle chains at' taehed to a long chain running tin.' whole! [ length of the stockade. They sleep on a ! platform covered with straw, and have blankets. Tiie sores of which the news j papers are making so much complaint ! are confined exclusively to the scrofulous I or diseased 111en. There is not a man I I' now ill 1110 stockade with sore legs. In j | fa<;t, there is not a .sore anywhere on anv i of them, although it is alleged tliat wc ! heat them so badly. Wc have a company of asl'at an?l slock skinned negroes asean | he found in Abbeville) County. They | work hard and do so cheerfully, and look 1 better and healthier than the negroes do I on the streets of Abbeville. The 1 tail road j > j Company is ready and anxious to be in-1 l' vestigated at any and all times. Have many convicts escaped lately ? i 1 j A. No,sir; they very seldom attempt > to uscapo now. < >ur system of guarding i them is so complete, that they cannot es-j j cape. Seven or eight have been killed in j their attempts to escape since wu com j incnced w<>rk. I have killed three. This - is more than any other guardsman has ,. killed. 1 Q. What are the prospects for finishing ' i the Ilailroad? 1 | A. We are bound to finish it. M'e don't I intend to stop until it is finished. The , State authorities have promised to in! crease tin; number of our convicts to olio 1 hundred iu l>ccember. We have about thirteen miles to finish. The heaviest . i work has been completed. The piers of j! tlio bridge are now being built. Three J piers are finished. | At this poiat Mr. llich ber-ged to beexJ cused, as he had business elsewhere, and \; left us. ;' T?ie IJ'.md Decision, f | "Wc have devoted much of our space to I. the decision of the Supreme Court of j the State- in the lioud case. We hope s that you'll read it, when you .will know if I as much about the decision as anybody I else, and then you'll be better able to 2 j eomo to a conclusion of your own. ,f Barbarous. j! [Jlarnn'cll S'ii!iwl.\ I Kisewnere i'i our c-oiiimu> we j'umisn a "(short article clipped from one of uur exV1 changes in regard lo the tini>; rstiIt i?'?l mortali ity unions tiie conviets leased by I lie inana? ; ;? !'* of tin* Augusta uiul' irt'i'invood Railroad. e! Out of aliont two hundred mid tweiiiy-i've l liftv per cent of them have died, and the re* . maluini; one hundred are now thrown 011 the .. State, in :icondition pitiable to behold. Many I of them, it is said, will never <l<> another 1-1 ?lay's work for themselves or anybody else, _ | and that with even the greatest care, there is no hope for a number of thetn. This is some,s 1 tiling which-shocks thesiood people ol* Sontli | Carolina, and as an in vesication is now goe I ing on. wesoon hope to hear the result. Those < I who are responsible for this wholesale slaughI tcrof human heitius should be made to sufl_ l'er for It. A criminal in the hands of the i law, isat least en titled to humane treatment, i either sick or well. The crime lor which lie s I is punished does not deprive him of this I ! right. > ?? - ? i We have hud the pi ensure during IhepresI ent. week oi meeiimr in our olllee and formJ lug the acquaintanceof Air. Addison K, i'osey, of fireenvilie, Ala. Mr. 1'osey was for| merly from Abbeville County and is a hrolli_!erof Mrs. Lynch, of our town. Jleis eotisid | erahle of n newspaper man and writes oopaslonal and very interesting letters to the Press and Italian' over the nom-de plume, of E.vAl?t?cviilian. lie will find our latch-string - on the out-side at all times.?Eedgtjlcld Moiii{ l"rThe editor of tin Iowa paper beitiy asked: 11 "Do hogs pay ?" says that si great many do | not: that' they take the paper for several years, luui then have the postmaster to send them back marked "refused." - ' ' V\; ' r mtw\.jnr:rr^r>sx,u:tio I j Stale Board Equalization. 1 a i5?;;v i lli: assessh ent uxcii axgel>. Some Imtiiaterinl Alterations in Other Counties, but General Result VuI clia n^retl. The Slate Hoard of Equalization mot in the Senate chamber on Monday, in ac- ( cordanco with the act which created the i Hoard, and which was passed during the last session of the Legislature, j Mr. MeMaster was elected chairman, aiul Mr. Winthrop Williams was elected j clerk. I The Comptroller General then submitted abstracts of real property, also a list j showing the value per acre of lands. | On motion, the list was read, i Mr. Macbeth ollered the following rcsI olution: ! liexolvctl, That this Hoard proceed to examine tho returns alphabetically from | the respective counties, and where there are no objections to the returns, then confirm the same. rending the above resolution the Hoard j took ;i recuse (.ill -1 1'. M. | At 4 o'clock 1*. M. the JJoard reassem1 bled. | Tli'! resolution of Mr. Macbeth, of ! Charleston, ol?'cred before the recess, was (then taken up, and after discussion, adopted. j The Hoard then adjourned till 10 A. M. j Tuesday. i j Happening to he in Columbia ourselves yesterday, wo visited the Senate Chamber during the morning session of the j Hoard. There was a full nttendanc?. We found our Abbeville representative, W. . II. Parker, Kstj., in his place, actively .engaged in looking after the interests of our County. The resolution of Mr. Mae- 1 I belli eame up fur discussion, and on n|i ! motion to reconsider, which was adopted, ( ! it was laid on the table. Then Mr. Moll 5ee of CreenvMlc moved to form the [counties into six groups and allow their j j representation to form separate com mi tI tees who should examine the returns and report thereon. Mr. Parker of Abbevilio i offered as an amendment that instead on. tlio six groups arranged uy .Mr. iucwif, i the counties should be dividedinto eight, groups according to their division intu ' tlio eight Judicial Districts. This amendment was accepted and tho resolution adopted. Tho eight committees then re- j tired, to report at tlio expiration of one hdiuv J The following telegram received at the , Press and Jianncr yesterday evening! will show the linal result, and give great 1, satisfaction to the peoplo of Abbeville]J county, inasmuch us it reflects credit on|, our tax-payers and maintains the correct-11 ncss and justico of tho action of our! County Hoard, whilo at tho same time it'] shows how faithfully and successfully ! .Mr. Parker guarded our interests: Comjmwa, Oct. 7, 1870. i To Press and Jianncr : Tho Abbeville Assessment as nindo by ] tho County Hoard of Equalization is un- | changed by the State Hoard. In some , other counties a few unimportant changes i have been made ; but on tho whole the 1 general result as to tho cntiro State j stands unchanged. The State Hoard has ( adjourned. W. il. P. I Associate Reformed Synod of the ' South. [Charlotte ObserviT.] 1 The seventy-seventh annual session of tho t Associate Ueforincd Synod of tho South held i' nt Union church in Chester county, S. C., I closed recently after a very full, pleasant and j harmonious meeting it was opened with a sermon hy itev. W. S. Mollutt, of Ohio, the retiring moderator. liev, J. II. I'eoples, of Tennessee, was elected moderator, and itev. D. li. i'ressly assistant clerk; In addition to the routine business wo present the following summary of the proceedings : There was a long discussion on the subject of extension or tlic boundaries 01 uic unurcn | in the Ihr West. The older congregations were earnestly exhorted to aid weak churcbcs in tiie erection of buildincs. Dr. Boyce dolivcrtd a sermon by special ap( ointment, on "The Discipline of the Church us a Div inc Ordinance," which he was asked to have published. ? Rev. D. Seouller, of Ohio, messenger of th<? United Presbyterian Churcli of the North, was presented and addressed the Synod briefly. The commit tec on Erskinc College submitted a report through its chairman, Rev. W. 15. Pressly, but discussion thereon was postponed. As a special orden a conference was held On tlie subject of foreign missions. Interesting addresses were made by llevs. E. E. Boyce, I), (i, Phillips, J. C. (ialloway, J. i?. Peoples,] .J. A. .Myers, VV. 15. Presslyaml 1 r. Scoullcr, A long letter was read from Mrs. Griflith, the missionary in Egypt. A committee of conference with the United I Presbyterian Church was appointed to open! j negotiations looking to a union of tho two churches. Kev. Drs. James Boyce and J. I. Bonner j and Hon. Mr. Simonton, of Tennessee, were appointed delegates to tin; Presbyterian Council. to meet in Philadelphia in .September, ISSO. Resolutions were adopted sustaining the mission in Charlotte. Ilev. Jatnes Boyce, D. D? who lias been for thirty-two years stated clerk of the Synod, tendered his resignation of this olllce, and, Kev. K. Lathan was elected to till his place, i A board of church extension was organized I with Kev. K. A. I toss, D. D., chairman, and | Joseph Wylle, secretary. ltev. Dr. Hanson, of North Carolina, was] appointed to edit and superintend the preparation of the scries of the International questions for (he use of Sabbath schools. Tiie Synod adjourned to meet next year ni Oak 1U1I, Ala.' . , ? ? ... The State's Convicts. [Columbia Rcgixtcr.] In view or tiie atrocious maltreatment of the Suite's convicts by tho contractors in the cast; of the Greenwood ltoad. It becomes necessary to know what protection the law of the state has thrown around these, wretched convicts and wherein the law has been so violated as to call down condign punishment upon tiie perpetrators of the abominable cruelties upon these unhappy victims of the law; for we la kg It there will be 110 half way measures pursued In redressing grievances which would movM any one but u pitiless savage to indignant sympathy with these poor creatures. Sixty-live per cent, of the State's convicts leased to these contractors cannot be hurried to untimely graves without- the State | rising iu its might and knowing the reason why. | Now for tho law, for we do not mean that 1 the fair escutcheon of South Carolina shall be I stained by any such inhumanity to man as | the shocking incidents of this shocking iiihuI inanity discloses in the midst of a civilized j State of the nineteenth century. Here are some of the most solemnly impor- j 1 tant trusts directly addressed to the care and ; keeping of these Directors. They tire just such a class of duties that ought to he fu'ly j and satisfactorily looked into at every month! ly meeting, and calling lor special meetings If necessary. It does seem to us Inexplicable | how u Hoard, composed of as good men as ev-1 1 er occupied such a position iu any State, ; could have sutt'erecl such u condition of things ; to transpire as is now reported without long ' .'CO calling the ollenders to account. Itcoulfl ! not be that they were indill'erent. The lntel. lijicncj and character of the Hoard utterly for, bids such an inference. J!ut it serves to show how the best of us, if we take things for grantred in such matters, infty be betrayed before wo I know it into what will wear the appcurance , 01' culpable negligence. We are free to say j we have no belter citizens to putin this grave I position than those now occupying it, and if I thev fail ns. (iod hell) us. Hut we can very i well surinlee how this mutter may have been | overlooked. The Penitentiary under Col. ! Lipscomb, wo say with pride and untold satI i.sl'uetion, is a model of neatness, order, disci: pline and humanity, and the Hoard could not I but lee I in tlieirmonthly meetings thateverything was In a round of honorable, thorough management, which was so credlUtble to them ; Col. Lipscomb ami the State that they lillle 'Imagined there was a part of their grave I trust's full of dead men's bones, it Is duO I ehiclly to Col. Lipscomb and the surgeon of ; the penitentiary, Dr. Trezcvant, and they ! have been ardently sustained by the lSoard, since it has taken I lift matter in hand, that this ntVair lias been put under the most searching Investigation. And under It disclosures have been mide which call for the most unllinciiing enforcement of the law. - ? o j Convicts on the (?rcen>vood and Alignstii Railroad. [Anderson InlcUigcnccr.] ; The Penitentiary Directors hnve been eonjsldering the treatment of convicts on the Greenwood and Augusta itailroud, in consequence of the startling fact that about one {ii (inured out of two hundred and twenty-live ] have died during the last year.- Tills is an j appalling death rale, and demands a rigid in! vestigation u< the hands of the authorities | who have the matter in charge. The State i cannot afford lo have the imputation of cruj city to prisoners pla.red upon her. When | men commit crime we believe they ought 10 | be punished, and are, not at all seutimi'iital upon the subject us to the manner in which it should be inllicled. There is, however, a great dili'erence between punishing a criminal and treating one cruelly. We have always been in favorol workingconvicUsou railroads I and other public improvements, but we can- J j not endorse the eniploymentof human beings i i in any enterprise which ensures such alright-1 | in! death rate, it'is, however, due to the an! thorities of the (ireenwood ami August. ' Koad that they should be 'icaid before they are condemned for tlie treatment oj me con-1 vicls they have been working. Jt may L>e | that there are exaggerated reports in cireulaI tioiiy or that tlie culpability rests elsewhere | than on their shoulders. Jic thin, however, as j it. may, the subject demands a lull and falrin; vcstigatioii, with a view of putting the public | scandal to rest and of correcting Mieinhunian1 ity that is charged, if it is found to exist, 110 i matter whence it iuay emanate. m hi n i n m if? mnmM ini imi i i hhiu'w??t nmw i i THE STATE AND HER DEBT. S _____ 1C! an FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME ^ CO Ult'T DECISION IN THE BOND CASES. wl He Tlio State Cannot Tako Ativantage of the Irregularities of its Own Agents, but Cannot lncui on an Obligation Not Raised Ac- to ? cording1 to its Fundamental Law and Laws made :n Pursuance bn Thereof?The State Cannot Owe su a Debt the Authorities are not ^ Competent to Contract, and. jj^ Cannot he Required to Pay what I nV it does not Owe. Ac G. M. Walker, cashier, plaintiff, appellant, vs. j'* the State of South Carolina, defendant, respondent?In Supreme Court. April TefiA, 1879. ku F. J. Pelzer, plaintiff, appellant, vs. the Slate of Hi South Carolina, defendant, respondeat.?In wi Supremo Court, April Term, 1879. I Edward Sabring, plaintiff, appellant, vs. the IF? State of South Carolina, defendant, resnon-1 dent.?In Supreme Court, April Term, 1879. | tl> The Bank of Charleston National Banking As- ] bu pociation. plaintiff, appellant, vs. the State of! bo South Carolina, defendant, respondent.?in | pf( Annl 'IV,-m 1 ?70 | CO I?. J. Jlerron. plaintiff, appellant, vs. tho State of South Carolina, defendant, respondent.?In er Supremo Court, April Term, J 879. J The W. L. I. Charitable Association, plaintiff, ap- CI pollant, v? the State of Soufli Carolina, de- sel fondant, respondent.?In Supremo Court, ln April Term, 187'J. ^ Opinion isy McIvkr, A. J. tin For a proper understanding of the questions c" raised i>y this appeal, as well as to show how it. j P? Is that these actions are brought against tne state in one of her own tribunals. It will I v" be necessary to make a brief statement of the ,,c legislation which cave rise to the eases. I),K On the 8th of Juno, 1S77, (10 Stat. 318.) tlie Gen- I rc; eral Assembly adopted a Joint Resolution. , which, after reciting that "groat uncertainty" existed in tho minds of tho taxpayers as to the JU real amount o( iho valid indebtedness of tho s'' State, provided for the appointment of a Coin-jRil1 mission, consisting of three members of the 9." Senate and four members of the House of Hop- |110 resentatlves, wnose duty, in general terms, it i '"H1 should be to investigate and report upon such j f. Indebtedness. This Commission, which, for I, convenience, will be called,as It is usually deslg- . . nnted. the Bond Commission, were, amongst u," other things, specially directed to Inquire and J!" report: First, What was the entire amount of consolidated bonds and certiilcales of stock 1,11 which had been issueil under the provisions of P*1 an Act entitled "An Act to reduce the vol- ' nine of the puollc debt and provide for tlie pay- ?0i inent of the same," approved 22d December, ,[' !X7:J, (15 .Stat., 518.) which Act will be called J"1 ihroughout this opinion theConsolidation Act. Second, "Whether there Is in the State treas- j'/i urer's office on Hie as vouchers cancelled bonds,' J, coupons and certificates of stocks of the issues 111,1 described, issued ln accordance with law and "P authorized to be consolidateil by the Act above L10 recited to the amount, required by'said Act." | , These duties involved, therefore, the lnstitu- 8? lion ol four inquiries: First, What was the en-"J, liro Ainouni (II VAJII.X'IIW.II IW.I u?uu.> mm Issued? Second, Whether there were vouchers In the Treasurer's oltice in the shape of cancel- 1 " led bonds, coupons urid certificates of slock for m which t.ho Consolidation bonds and stocks were *>Ll Issued to the amount required by the terms of {, the Consolidation Act? Third, Whether such ,r vouchers?cancelled bonds, coupons and ccrtifl- , catcs of stock?had been Issued in accordance with law? Fourth, Whether such cancelled bonds, Ac., were amonzst, those which wore uuthoriKtd to be consolidated by the terms of| P? the ConsulIdaiIon Act: for it will be remem-l bered that the bonds, coupons ami certificates ulj of stock authorised to bo consolidated are "i; specially mentioned in tlie Act, while others | , are not mentioned at all; anil others again, a I very lar;:e proportion?nearly all in fact?of the ' Conversion bonds, are specially excepted from ! "I1, the operation of the Act, because they wore i ? issued "without any authority of law." j r0 Jn duo time the Bond Commission submitted ji. in olaboratc report, accompanied with various , " schedules?that called No. U being Intended to!' represent the consolidation bonds and ccrtifl- ?? lavtes "affected by vouchers which, In the Judsj- ^ mentof the Bond Commission, were not issued |' In accordance with law and authorized to be J,." consolidated under the "Act to reduce the vol. ! V!\ umeof the public debt and provide for the pay-' mentof the same." Thereupon the General j ' I, Assembly, without either affirming or or dis- j f [iflirming the conclusions of the Bond Cominis- " sion.so far as the validity of the bonds and j , stocks mentioned In schedule Xo 0 were con- i "r cerned, passed a "Joint Resolution providing a j mode of ascertaining the debt of the State and | of liquidating and settling the same "?'2-Jd ' March. 1878,10th HUitut.es fiffll. That resolution, in its first Section, provides for the establish-| ?' me t of a court,claims which "shall have Juris- j P.? diction to hear and determine any ease or cases made up or brought to test the validity of any , of the consolidated bond?-, coupons and certili- !, rates of stock, or of any of the various classes of c the mentioned in the said report of the Bond I Commission as renting on vouchers not ls-ucd 1 J: 1 In accordance with law and authorized to be j , consolidated by the Act of the General Assem- , YJbly, approved -JUd December, I3*o, cut I fed 'An j .Jjr Act to reduce the volume of t he public debt and , provldo for the payment of the same.' and. also, us not Issued in accordance with law, and fur- j ther designated and described in schedule 0 of , snid report." In Section !) it is provided "that.! , f the Attorney-General and his said associates, j with the consent of the creditors of this State, or so many of tliom as shall be necessary, may I ' ' make up a case or cases to be heard and do-1 (j! termined in saUl Court, in which, if practica-! bio, the State shall be defendant, to test the rj' validity of the said consolidated bonds and ( ?iui)on? and certificates of stock mentioned | J. in said schedule 0, bringing before the Court.; r,, the various classes of vouchers which it Is ai-! J,, lesed in the report of the said Commisions i impair the validity of the said consolidated ".J bonds, coupons and certificates of stock, or any i ,i' of them." The tenth Section directs "that!: there shall be levied for the current iiscal year a tax sullicient to pay the coupons and Interest M, orders maturing on the outstanding consolida- v Hon bonds an i certificates of stock during the sjiid fiscal year." The eleventh directs the ' payment of such interest on those consolida-1 rr tion bonds and ccrtifl ates of stock mentioned in schedule.5as subject lo no valid objection, and then Section IS provides for the payment j,^ of the Interest for t hat and the preceding fiscal i* year on the several classes of consolidation bonds and certificates of stock mentioned In , scheduleU"whenevertheresiiall bcailnal ad-i ; judlction as to the validity of tie several I classes of bonds and certificates of stock in thej jj/ manner hereinafter provided and none other." [J* In pursuance of the provisions of this resolu-! it tion, the wises which we are now called upon :. to determine, being actions on coupons of the!'' various classes of bonds mentioned in said! /f,, schedule6, were bn-ught before the court ofj'^; claims, and the mnjorliy of that court have!:, rendered their Judgment, in favor o. the State I1'' from which these appeals have been taken to , f iiia pnnrt nti nrovlucd for in the Sccond See- i l.v tloii of the said Joiut Resolution. I j" The Judgment of the court of claims is based upon a construction of the provisions of the> Joint Resolution constituting it, by which they 7*" held that thcirjjurisdictlou is limited to the in<iuiry: "Were tho vouchers?Unit is the can- ' celled bonds, coupons and certificates of stock thi issued in accordance with law and authorized! he be consolidated by the Act of the General As-Jv c seinbly approved December 22,1873?" But they ._ carefully avoid the inquiry, as not, in their) judgment, within the scope of their Jurisdiction j wt whether assuming this to beso, the bonds and i pt"1 certificates of stock issued under the provisions j su of the consolidation Act are, nevertheless, valid j by or Invalid; or, to use tlieir language, whether I t,j "the consolidation bonds issued under the Act | o' JS73 are valid or invalid in other respects." n'i It is very clear, from the grounds upon which .' that court base their conclusions, that they use I the words "not in accordance with law" not ip j se the sense that there was no Act of the General ha Assembly authorizing the issue of the bonus in co question, but that tho various provisiuis of the Acts authorizing their issue were not cornpli- *f. ed wi h, and for that reason they were not is- I,, sued "in accordance with law." lJut, as we vJ shall sae. the real question lu these cases Is, K& whether there were any Acts authorizing tho th issue, and that whether the bonds were issued 1 wl In accordance with the various provisions of th such Acts is a question comparatively uuim-jf,,, portant. An Act may fully authorize the is- i . sue of bonds du'J yet the t>onds may not have ! been issued in strict conformity to fheprovis- "J ions of such Act^-"not in accordance with j law." Hence tb- fundamental inquiry is, "Has fa: tho power to Issue the bonds been conferred?" | re not whether such power has been exercised 1 fe, "'*? ""nnnlnnm. with" the various Drovlslolis Of I f,. tlie l:iw conferring the power. * |*u We think It plain that the ohjcctof the resolutlon was to provide for "a tinal adjudica- P1 tion" of the vexed question as to what Wus the in real debtot the .Stan*, not simply to Institute an \v< Inquiry Into'.lie consideration of thai which I of purported to bestreh' debt; for It Is too plain ; a principlo of law that a negotiable security? i in, to which class it wHl be scCn the bonds tnfques- ! tlon belong?whether Issued by a private indl- "l vlduai, a corporation or a State, may constitute 1 a valid debt, even though originally based [ L; upon an lusutlicient or fraudulent Consldera- ca tion, or upon no consideration at all, to sup- th pose that any one, much less the Legislature nt which passed this resolution, could be ignorant of It. Hence when tne declared object of the Legislature,as evidenced by the title of the ruso- HU tion, was to provide "a mode of ascertaining tu the debt of the St ite and of liquidating and set- ag ding lhe same," we cannot suppose that they in intended that the investigation should stop U{l half way. but that it should be complete and thorough?that the "debt" should be iiscertnin- "* ed and not simply the nature of the consldera- nf tlon upon whicl^t rested. And its this luves- Kc ligation was referred to a judicial tribunal, the an necessary inference Is that the object was to th submit the question to the test oflegal princi- Jai pies. Hut, In addition to this, the expressterms ,,r of the resolution leave no doubt lb our minds its ? to the real intention. In the Mrst Section tiio , court of claims is Invested with Jurisdiction to hear and determine any cat>o brought "to tost the vulldity," not of all the consolidation bonds til <Sc., but only of such of tbem as are "mentioned fie in the said report of the liond Commission as r? resting on the vouchers not issued in accordance with law." Mow, the v.iHdity of these bonds could not bo tested by limiting the 01 Inquiry, as the court of daims have done, to the question whether the vouchers?the can- j eo celled bonds, &e.?were issued accordance with j sti law for it may be, as wo shall presently see, tic thiLt, such vouchers are liable to all the objec-| j j lions al ley eel against them In the Judgment of I the court of claims, and yet the consolidation !. bonds may still be valid debts of tlie Suite. It j111 seems .o us that the construction which i qt the court of claims have placed npon the! he words "as resting," In the tlrst Section is, of the resolution, Is altogether inadmissl-1 ju ble, and that thoso words are used [ u, merely for the purpose of indicating a partiou- j' iar class of bonds whose validity is lo lie tested-, j For it will be remembered that while the objeetiou urged by the Bond Commission tomuch | uj the larger part of the bonds, Ac., mentioned in i jkj Schedule(i is because they were issued In ex-1 tn change for l>6nds, coupons or st<K:k which, | ^ though embraced within those mentioned in ! ? ' the Consolidation Act, were yet illegally con-1 soiidated, because they were not issued in uc- 1111 cord mice with law, tne additional objection is , en made to others bccausc they were Issued in ox- ! be change for bonds, coupons or stock which were i wi not embraced within those mentioned in the I th Consolidation Act. Iieuce, lu the lirsl Section i:_ of the resolution provision is made for testing |, the validity not only of that class of bonds a whifh Is subject to the llrst objection, but also | I'a of that cluss of bonds which is subject to the Ire* second as well as the llrst objection, sons to in- j 1U sore the consideration of both objections, lint Cc were there any doubt, the provisions of the jj/ ninth Section demonstrate that the construe-1 A' tiou we have adopted is the correct one. Jn /, that Sectiou the Attorney General and bis as- , socuite.s are directed'to make a ease. What for? Mot ?.o try the question whether tlio vouchers an upou w loch tiie euu.iul idatiou bonds rest were co Kvtt inannm?I?urownM wcqmbo iucd in conformity to the provisions of tbe sii rural Arts authorizing their issue, but "to to *t t he validity of the said consolidated bonds rn d coupons and certificates of stock mention- ,, in Schedule 0;" and certainly the additional P mis contained in that section?"bringing be- f,J e the Court the various classes of vouchers pa licit it Is alleged in the report of the said ur ?nd Commission Impair the validity of the tli Id consolidation bonds, coupons and certlll- B? les of stook, or any of them"?cannot have nf] e effect of either enlarging or contractihg the me which the eases were made up to tfy. The ly object of these additional words was to In- P1 act the Attorney Ueneral and his associates pi see to It that the grounds upon which the e\ nsolidat.lon bonds had been assailed In the tb port of the JBond Commission should be re uught Tully before the Court which was ,f| Kclally constituted to try the above suited Is- , i>, and perhaps to provide that these vouchers 1(!: on Id be competent evidence upon such trial, hi i make the matter still clearer, the Leglsla- tlj re proceeded In the tenth Section todireet the ? y of :i lax sultleient to pay tbe Interest on all ti i; coiisollil .lion bonds, <?<:.; and in tlio twelfth ?i. ction provided that the Interest on the bonds ii en I lotted In Schedule II should be paid 'heinver the'e should lie a final adjudication to the validity of the said several classes of c) ndsand certificates of stock in the manner df rviitliQ/ore vrociilrd and none other." The Ian- n( ago would seem to pltiee It beyond dispute al :it it was intended to Invest the Court of Claim th full Jurisdiction to make "a final adjudicu- . ia'' (subject only to appeal as provided in the CL iolntloii) of al I <i nest ions touching the valldl- ni of the consolidated bonds, and that when hi cii adjudication was made no question as to ai i: validity of such bond< should remain open, ti t if such adjudication was in favor of the nds, then the interest thereon was to be paid, f >w as under the construction adopted by the urt of Claims some of these questions were ^ I open and undecided, It is very clear to our b( Indsthat such construction was not the prop- pt one. ui In reviewing the Judgment of the Court of jrt aims two general questions present them- ij. vijs; First. Are tho conclusions announced 9 UiatJudgmcRt as to the existence of the *. k-eral intlriuitiesalleged against tho several isses of vouchers well founded? Second. If M By are well founded, does it f-IIow that the di nsolidatlon bonds, <sc., resting In whole or in hi rt upon such vouchers, are invalid and not He iidlng obligations of inestato? Hut, from the <. :w which wc take of this case, it will only b? cessary for us to consider thesecond question " thuanswer to that will be conclusive of the b< iult in the cases now before the Court. ni Jut for the fact tfiat a ditrerent view has been m ggested from a source which we have always j>, i'n accustomed to treat with the highest res- g.j eel, we would have deemed it scarcely ncces- ,,, ry to say that in the consideration of tills ( cstioti wc are bound to regard the Constltum of l.sfls as the fundamental law of the State al d tbat all aetsofthe (General Assembly pass- O since its adoption not in violation of any of in provisions or those of tho Constitution of the j} ii ted States are Just jus valid and of tho same uding force and effect as any otiier statute I ssed at another period of the nistory of the , ' tte. Any other view would be In violation of tl a fundamental principles upon which all re- r< blican government* rest., and would lead t.o ol extricablo confusion'and perhaps to civil ai mmotion and strife. Without undertaking ^ Inquire into the mode and manner by which e Constitution oflrtMSwus adopted,It is enough say that thu people of the State havel'oryears hl llufsccil HI 11 HI1U truiliuil IL il5 IUU I U UUill IJUU- "v law of tlie State. The whole muchlnery of ai astatc government was framed and is now to erating under the provisions of that. Constl- a| m. The very investigation which led to the i.. ,inliiir of the case now before ti. - Court was l \ on foot by a Legislature elected I ursuance its provisions. rhoCourt of Claims, whose ^ clslon we are called upon to review, and tills a' nrt itself, were botii organized under and owe " cir nuthorlty to the Constitution of l8tM. It is rt anifest. therefore, thai wc are bound to re- vj rd that Constitution as the fundamental law ? the state and all Acts passed In pursuance of . provisions as ofthe same binding force and w ect as any that may be found on the statute ok passed prior to-the adoption of that Con- ni tiition. As Taney, C. J., says in case of Lu- tl i>r 's. Borden,7 How, 40: "Judicial power qi issupposes an established govcrnrnentcapable enacting laws and enforcing their execution ,, id of appointing Judges to expound and udinlster them. The acceptance ofthe Judicial iceisrtrecognitionol't.hc authority of the tl vornmentffom which It Is derived, and if w h authority of that government is annulled w d overthrown, the power of its courts and w icr otllcers Is annulled with it. And if a.State w urt should enter upon the Inquiry proposed this case, and should coino to the conclusion lit the government under which It acted had 1 cn put aside and displaced by an opposing vernment (or was a usurpation, as seems to in contended lor by one of the Judges of the c< nrtof Claims,) it would cease to be a court w d be Incapable of pronouncing a Judicial de- ... Ion upon the question It undertook to try. , It decides at all us a court, it n- cessarlly af- :V ins the existence and authority <if the-gov- " iment under which It Is exercising Judicial c< wer." b< L'lie legal principles which determine theaner to the question which wc are called upon . solve are few In number and are well ostab- " lied. It is manifest that th-question depends m on the inquiry whether the r>tate has, by a m lid contract, bound it.selt to pay the amounts tl ilcli the consolidation bonds in question pur- w rt to secure, tor though' the action In each of j B cases is u;>on a coupon of one of such bonds, may be regarded, and, for convenience, will U1 spolten (.fin this oplnl- n, as if the action n.' re upon the bond itself? tho le^al principles i ti volved being allkcuppllciible tifan action on a] coupon as n n bond. State vs. Spartanburg i? d I'nlon Rallroid Ctimpany, ?S. C., 1(W, re- ,r ^nizin^ City of Kenosha vs. Law>on, !i Wall., : iiinW.'iiv of Lexiucton vs. IJutler. II Wall.. r. " " ' u S'ow, as tho Supreme Court of the United a :ites has uniformly held that, while they wl!i c u general rule rcunrd the construction given ' '.Stute Cmi ts to State legislation and Stale institutions as conclusive, su h rule Is subject this exception, that where the question in- 0 Ived is not only whether such legislation Im- t< irs that which is admitted to bo a contract but t< lether that which is alleged to be a ti ntiact Is In fact a contract (State (f ink o* Ohio vs. Knoop, 1(1 flow., HGS), The Jef fion Branch Bank vs. Skely. 1 Black. -Ml; "J :lpcko vs. Dubuque, 1 Wall., is:!; Township of 1 nc Grove vs. Taicol t, 1!) Wall., 'Mi; and as the ncral Assembly', in providing for this ilives- b :ation, has, in expressed terms, recognized the n ;bt of the parties 19 invoke the Judgment of a| Is tribunal of last resort, it becomes impor- r. ut to examine the question In the llghtof the cisious of the Supreme Couitofthe United . utes. j1 i'here can bo no doubt but that coupou bonds n te t hese under consideration, as well as the d upons thereof, are negotiable securities, and. ci such, subject to the same rul es of law as gov11 that class of securities. White vs. Vermont w tilroad Company, 21 How.,575; Mercer Connvs. county of Sac., !l<( United Suites Hep., ,jti; R1 mgston vs. S. G K. It, CO., 2 South Carolina rt sp., 21S. v; ["here is as little doubt that States which Issue d goMublepstper incur the same responsibilities 0i ticli attach to individuals or corporations in a co cases. United states vs. Bank of Mctropo- ; , l.j Peters, 3!U; .Murray vs. City ttmncil, it'! S. Uep., 1!>, Tlio Floyd Acceptance, 7 Wal- !i! je, As is said i'i the last mimed case " t M': list lie taken as settled tlmt when the United | d lies becomes a party to what is culled com- jc< urciai paper? by Which is meant that class of per which is transferable by end trseincut of 11,1 delivery, and, bctw> on private parties, is ex-1' ipt, in the Lands of innocent holders, from !a qulry into the circumstances under which j was put into circulation?they are bound, in i ft! y court to who.sejurisdietloii they submit, by | c o same principles that govern individuals in vi eir relations to such paper." ^ That the plaintiffs in theso cases, as well as ri ts holders of the coupons for which tho bonds TJ ro in question wero exchanged, arc entitled to tl regarded as bona tide holders before niaturi- b , and entitled to all tiie rights incident thereto, if ! do not think cau bo questioned, as there is no is oof to the contrary, at tho very utmost only bi spicion. Tho rule upon this subject, as stated h Mr. Justice Swavne in the case of San An- tc ilia vs. Meliaffey, (% U. 8 Rep., at page 314.) tl .on tko authority of 2 Pars., (Bills and Notes, ci ) and .Pinkcrton vs. Bailey, (? Wend., 600 j is ol at "tho bolder of commercial paper, in the ab- ci nee of proof to the contrary, is presumed to w ,vo taken it under duo liotjcc, for a valuable o nsideratiou/|and without notice of any objec- ti in to which it was liable;" and, as is said by tl r. Justice Field in Cromwell vs. County of Sac., j w j U. S. Bop., 57-8,) in speaking of similar obli- ti tions issued by municipal corporations, Ac,, In ey are transferable by delivery, and, cl len issued by competent authority, pass into si e bauds of a bona lido purchaser for value be- fc re maturity, freed from any infirmity in their ai igin. Whatever fraud the ofilcers authorized ai issue them may have committed in disposing p them, or however entire may have been the ai ilure of tho consideration promised by parties | c< ceiving thorn, theso circumstances will riot af- i ir t tho titlo of subsequent bona lido purchasers fr r value before maturity or the liability of tho h unicipalitics. As with otnor negotiable paper, sre suspicion that thero may bo a defect of title iv its holder, or knowledge of circunistances which s; )uld excite suspicion as to his title in tho mind A a prudont man, is not sufficient to impair tho ! e< le of the purchaser. That result will only fol- Is w where there lias been bad faith on his part, bl icli is the decision of this Court, and subse- | m lently its language, in the case of Murray vs. st irdnur (2 Wall. 110.") That is a very strong [ \\ so upon tho subject. Tho facts, iu brief, wore i tl ose: Negotiable bonds were stolen from Lard- bi :r and sold to Murray, a broker in Now York, it ier circumstances well calculated to excite his tl snicion, though there was 110 proof of any a&- f( ai guilty knowledge on his part?tho compliant | ir ;ainst him being that he did not prosecute ths | sc quiry which such circumstanccs of susspicion | C iturallv suggested. Tho Court, after an olabor- j t\ e review of tho English cases, held that ho was j G it bound to do so; that tho possession of ire- [ vi itiablo paper is presumptive proof of good titlo,; tl id the burden of proof is up? him who assails (1 0 right olaiined by the party in possession, and u id down tho rule in very much tho same lan- tl tage as that above quoted, declaring it to bo It ttlcd law from which there was 110 disposiou to, j ci inart. 111 If, then, tho bonds here in question aro ncgo-1 a< ible securities and the holders thereof are bona tl le holders our next inquiry will bo as to the | ai :!e governing that class of securities iu tho di iiids of such holders. Tho rule, as stated by j If 10 of tho most recent writers on this branch of 1 ft nimorrial law, is thirt if such holders, unaffect- w [ by, and exempt from inquiry into, tho circum- tt unces under which they were put into circula- tl m.?2 Dan. on Negotiable Instruments, Sec w 502-3. Now, as corporations of States issuing 1 u] ch papor must necessarily do so through the qi utrumentalitv of officers or ajronts. tho only in-1 tl dry iu audi caaea in whether tiio officer or agent | fi is been entrusted with authority to make and j v: me tbo paper, and it is not competent to inquire [ d< to his conduct in making the issue. If he has I fc: ion guilty of irregularities or oven frauds hi fc orcising the power with which he has been in- tii listed, the loss thereby occasioned must fall! al >on tho party who entrusted him with sr.ch i in iwer and not upon tho innocent holder who has! Ci ken the paper in tho usual course of trade. 115 he rule as staled in Supervisors vs. Schenck (o | w all., 78-1.) L-i: "When a corporation has power, j >p ider any circumstances, to issue negotiable se- j it ritics, the decision of this Court is that tho j tli ma fide holder has the right to presume they j ftl :ro issued under the circumstances which give | iz e requisite authority, and they are no more j i" .bio to b& impeached for any infirmity in the 1 isi lids of such holder than any other commercial j'? per." And this rule has been reaffirmed in tho j t!: sent case of .San Antonio vs. McliaJYcy ('JC U. S. | tli >!?., 314,) and again hi the still inoro recent case of 1|" unity of Macon vs. Shores, (07 U. S. 27H- nl ) I11 the case of tho Commissioners of Knox | Tl ninty vs. Aspinwall, (21 How., 515,) it was held 1 tb at, where bonds have been issued by the Board ] g' County Commissioners, under the authority of i h< Act ofjtho Legislature which proacribedjcertaiu j al uditious upon which the bouda were to be is- th im m?,M WW, II >! I? 11 ITO3M3??M III! ? icd, ' 'Uio purchaser of tlie bonds bad a rig! assume that the voto of the County,which ws ado a condition to the grkint of the power, hi ion obtained, from the fact of the subscriptif r tho Board to tho stock of the railroad col ,ny ai;d the issuing of the bonds, on theit fac i|>ort a compliance with the law under whi< ey were issued. 'This bond,'we quote, 'is i ed in part payment of a subscription of $20C 0 by tne said Knox County to the capital stoc by Order of tho Hoard of Commissioners,' irsuanCo of the third Section of Act, Ac. T1 irehaserwas not bound to look further f( idence of a compliance with tho conditions e grant of the power." In the comparitive cent case of Colorna vs. Eaves, (92 0. 8, Iiej 10.) tho foregoing case is characterized as ading case upon the subject, and is said ive established two propositions: First. "Tb io issne of the bonds containg a recital tnat th ere issued under and in pursuance, of the legisl voAct waH a sufficient bams for an assumption ! ic purchaser that the conditions on which tl lunty (in that case) was authorized to issi lem had been complied with, and that the pc laser was not bound to look furthor for ei rnce of such compliance, though the recital d )t affirm it." Second, That "where legislali ithority has been given to a municipality, or officers, to subscribe for the stock of a railroi unpany, and to issue municipal bonds in pa cnt, but only on some precedent conditio ich as a popular vote favoring the subscriptio id whero it may bo gathered from tho legisi vo enactment that tho officers ot th? muuii ility were invested with power to decide whet the condition precedent has been compli ith, their recital that it has been, made in t .?1.. :?.. ,1 t... H,n..,l V.nl/1 K,t o V.nn? ? ;uun J.rnuuu liiuiu, umu uv,iu k/j <m isvr?M? 14 irehaser, in conclusive of tbo fact and bindi %d tbo municipality." In Coloraa vh. Eaves, said that tbe first proposition haw been rei raed in tbo cases of Moran vs. Miami Cotirn Black, 732; Mercer County vh. Hacket, 1 Wal I; Supervisors vs. Scbenck, 5 WalL, 784, arid ever vs. Muscatine, 1 Wall., 284, and. tliou jbted and dissented from by individual Judgi is never been overruled. But, so far as t icond proposition is concerucd, it is said that ban been so firmly seated iu reason and a lority that it cannot be shaken." This case h ion repeatedly recognized and aflirmed in imber of subsequent cases, amongst whi ay bo mentioned Marcy vs. Oswego, 92 U. up., 037; Humboldt vs. Long, 92 U. S. Rej 12; Commissioners vs. Bollos, 94 U. S, Be 14; County of Warren vs. Marcy. 97 U. 8. Rej i. That the effect of these decisions is to \ firm both of the propositions laid down in Ku aunty vs. Aspinwall is mado mbnifest by w) said in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justi radley in Coloma vs. Eaves, 92 U. 8. Rep., ige 493, and in tbe dissenting opinion of 3 istice Miller in Humboldt vs. Long, 92 U. op., at page 469. Wc Ihink, therefore, that t ;sult of the of tho cares in the Supremo Co! I tho llhited States clearly is, that wh i Act of tho Legislature authorizes tho issud jnds by a municipal corporation upon cert: >nditions therein named, and the bouds arc led by the proper officcra of such corporatio mtaining a recital that they are issued uric ithority conferred by such Act, that such re .1 is conlusive iu favor of a bona fide holder-tl 1 tbo necessary conditions named in tbe I ivo been complied with, as a purchaser is i jund to loek beyond tho legislative Act and t icitttls, contained in tho bonds. As was said larcy vs. Oswego, (92 U. S. Rep., at pago 64 tho suosccuent issue or ttie oonus contains i :cital above quoted?that they were issued ' ,rtuo of, and in accordance with,' the logislati ct, and in pursurance of, and in accordar ith, the vote of three-fifths of the legal vol r the township'?was another determinate at only of tho result of tho popular voto, b lat all tbe facts existed which the Statuto nircd iu order to justify the issue of tho bond ho case of Weith and Arents vs. tho City rilmington. (fi3 N. C. Rep., 24,) whi luins to be much relied upon by tho counsel 1 ic State, does not seem to us to bo in confl ith the foregoing views; for in that case thi as an absolute lack of power to issue the bor bich were there brought iuto question, and tl ere, therefore, properly held to be absolut rnd even in the hands of a bona fido hold he Act under which tho bonds were issued 01 ithorized their issue in exchange for outstiu ig valid dobts of the State, and as it wns c< ,-ded that the original bond in exchange bich they were issued was given for money , meed in aid of the rebellion, which class ebts had been declared by tho Constitution mt State to bo absolutely void, there was, >urse, no authority whatever for the issue of \ jnds in question. It is trne that the cases which establish i iregoiug principles arose upon bonds issued innicipal corporations; but if, as we have sC cgotiable bonds issued by States are subject 10 same rules which govern that class of prt| lien issued by individuals or corporations, it ifticnlt to conctive how this can make any dil? ico?and, indeed, it seem to bo conceded in I rgument on both sides that there is%o disti on. Tho rule grows out of the principles wh pply to that class of paper, and is in no wise < undent upon the character of the parties V iftke or issue such paper. XIIOIU ir?t nunuTGi, ? v,~v "* lese principles were applied to bonds issued State?California vs. Wells, Fargo, & Co., al. Ilcp., 226. In that ca.se certain warm hicli bad been issued by the proper authoril f the State were paid and deposited in the of f the State Treasurer. The warrants were jrwards stolen and presented to the Treasu 5 be fnnded under tho provisions of an Act < tied ''An Act to provide for paying certaineo ible claimsagainst tho State. Bonds were led in exchange for tho stolen warrants, t 1easurer at tho time not knowing that they 1 Ben stolen. Subsequently discovering this fa e demanded the surrender of the bonds, a pon refusal, brought this suit. There was llegation or proof tliat the defendants knew icts showing the fraud. It was held that, 1 arrant s being negotiable paper, the bonds issl l exchange for them were valid deb'g iu ands of innocent holders; as the defendants w eclarcd to be, in the absence of any prooi to antrary. The practical question, then, in these cases ero tho bonde in question issued by competi nthorUy ? As Hie bonds purport to bo tho boi f the State, and as a State cannot, like an in idual, dircctly make and issue a bond, but m u so through*th? instrumentality of its oflic r agents, who can only act under special auth v conferred on them, the inquiry in these ca narrowed down to the question whether si nthority was conferred ujjon tho oUlcers v, mod the bonds in question. This authority i or t.lic Constitution of the Stat*, could only inferred by an Act of tho General Assem assed in conformity to the provisions of that niniOBt. Hence it is not sufficient to show t. n Act;of the General Assembly has been pasi uthorizing the issue of such bonds, but it m Iso appear that such Act is not subject to t .institutional objection?Town of South Otta s. Perkins. 9G U. S. Ilcp.; flarshman vs. Da unity, 02 L". S. Rep., 569. Which, though ov iled by the case of Cass county vs. Johnson, i . S. Rep., 360,) as to tbo point that the 1 jere in question was unconstitutional, may 3 b regarded as authority for the proposition tl the Act conferring the power to issne tho boi unconstitutional the issue of such bonds \ u without authority, and the bonds, even in 1 auds of a bona fide holder, will be invalid. 1 >0, if by a proper construction of the terms le Act, tho authority to issue tho bonds is 1 inferred, the bonds will bo invalid in the hai f a bona lido holder. As, for example, in I iso of Marsh vb Fulton county, (10 Wall., 67 hero the Act authorized the issue of bonds 110 railroad corporation and tho bonds in qn 011 were issued to another corporation, whi iough' a portion of tho first named corporate as held to be a distinct and separate corpo on; and in the case of the Town of East 0 ,nd vs. Skinner, (94 U. S. Rep., 255,) where 1 rarter of a railroad corporation provided that tall be hwful for all persons of lawful age, >r tho agent of any corporate body, to subscri ny amount to the capital stock of saidcompan; id it was held that the words "agent of ante urate body" applied only to private corpora? nd did not, therefore, autborizo a tnunicij irnoration to subscribe for stock and issue boi 1 payment therefor, and such bonds were, the >10, invalid, oven in the hands of a bona t Aider. The bonds, the validity of which wo aro caU pon to inquire into, allpurport to bo bonds led under the provisions of tho Consohdati ct in exchange for coupons of other bonds oi i vouchers, purporting to have been previou sued under various Acts of the General Asse ly, which will hereinafter bo more particula icntioned, and it is conceded that in every ,ance except one?that of tho case of G*. Talker, Cashier?tho vouchers were anion; io.se mentioned in the Consolidation Act, t L>nd in the oaso of Walker, Cashier, being 1 litted to rest in part upon a batch of somo iri lousand dollars of coupons detached from boi )r relief of the Treasury which are not iueluc 1 the bonds of that class mentioned in the Ci Nidation Act. It is likewise conceded that t onsolidation Act was not passed "by tho vot4 vo-thirds of the members of each branch of I eneral Assembly," and was not submitted to >to of tho people, as is required by Article 10 ic Constitution, adopted 2'Jth January, 18 15th Statutes, 406,) where after that time I eneral Assembly undertakes to create any f 1 ur debt or obligation 011 the part of tho Sta ; cannot, therefore, oe allowed tho effort eating "any further debt or obligation" a mst be regarded as simply a scheme for tho ljustineut of tho then existing debt. Whc lercfore, a question arises as to tho validity ly bond which purports to have been lnsucd i iir tho provisions of that Act, the inquiries a' .t. Was the debt for which such bond was iksu then existing debt of tho State V 2d. if 1 is such dobt amongst those provided for by t rius of the Consolidation Act ? Tho answer 10 first inquiry depends upon the quest'! bother tho "'vouchers" wiiicu woro surrender pon tho issue of the consolidation bonds now lestiou woro mado and issued by competent a lorily. These vouchers, ill tho owes now 1 no the court, consist of coupons of boudk' irioiTH classes, which, for convenience, may isiguated as Bonds for relief of Treasury?Bon tr fmiding Bills of the Bank of the State? Bon t the payment of Interest on tho Public Del st issne?Bonds for redemption of Bills Beco: bio?Conversion Bonds?Bonds for payment terest on the Public Debt, second ifisuu? Lai imimissiou Bonds of 18lill?Laud Commissi! 1 . ..< 1 nil! 'l'l?nur? P/intmng <Ui Wft hjivrt Hlif llliun U& X./??/. j.uwnu vvu^vwu, ore negotiable securities, and hence tho on lostion is whether there wan any lawful atithi y for their inane. Not whether in issuing th( ie officers charged with that duty complied wi i the conditions prescribed iu the Acts ai'tbc ing their issue, or, as it in phrased in the dee n of the Court of Claims, whether they wt sued "iu accordance with law," but was tlicM Yf authorizing their Issue '{ Tho bonds to whi use coupons were originally attached bear lip' leir face tho ovideuec tuat tliey were issued irsuanco of certain Act* of the General Assei y, referring in express terms to such Ad liese bonds, together with their coupons, mu lerefore, upon tho foregoing principles, bo i irded as valid debts in tho hands of bona fit >ldors, if the Acts so referred to b3 constitute and do in fact authorize their issue, ov otigh it may now appear that all the conditio] hi prescribed nnynot have been compfied with,and 18 even though there may have been the grossest id frauds perpetrated by the officers and agents of jn the State in issuing them aud putting them into circulation. ?, It is not and can Act be denied that the Acts 3I1 so referred to do lu fact purport to authorize ij. the issue of the bonds, except in the case of I _ the second Issue of bonds for the payment of ? the Interest upon the public debt, for which ;' there does not seem to hjwc been the shadow Jn of authority of any kind, and which, tbere16 fore, are absolutely void, no matter In whose or hands they may be. For If the Act be conto strned as giving authority for a ncconU Issue, ]y there Is no conceivable reason why a third or , fourth or an Indefinite number of issuescould *' not have been made upon the same construc,a tion; and, certainly, a construction leading to such a result cannot be the correct one. It Is at u mistake to suppose that because the Coney solidatlon Act authorizes the funding of $1,a-| l!f7,000 of bonds Issued under the Act of 26th by | August, 1MB8, to pay interest upon the pubUc debt, there wu?. therefore, an over fssue under the Act of $107,000. The Act does 110 not limit the amount of bonds to be issued r- to SI,000,000, but simply limits the amount 'i- to be raised to that sum, and, Judging from id the prices at which the bonds were then sellve lug, the only matter of surprise is that a much t0 larger amount of bonds hud not been Issued, jj If this be so, then the only remaining ques? tion is wiietiier these various Acts purporting - Jo authorize LUc issue or bonds are conmiiuni tional. Various objections huve been raised u, to tlielr constitutionality, which I** WE WIMi PROCEED TO CONSIDER. The constitutionality of the Act entitled A" "An \cl to authorize a loan to redeem the ed obligations known as the Bills receivable of he the State of South Carolina," ratified 2Gth Aude Ru?t. 1SIW, (IHh Statutes, 18,) Is assailed upon nK the following grounds: 1st. Because the debt ? thereby purported to be contracted was not f for the purpose of defraying "extraordinary , ' expenditures," and Is, , therefore, a vlolay? tlon of Section 7, Article 0, of the Const!tu11., tlon. This objection is manifestly based upon in the idea that the word "extraordinary" is used in thatSectlon in lt? popularsense, whereas it is clear from the context that it is only used ' in contradistinction to the word "ordinary" as the latter word Is used In the sense of current or usual annual expenditures in a prece n ding Section of the same article. For in Secna tlon 3 of that Article the Constitution declares a that "The General Assembly shall provide an ch annual tax sufficient to defray the expenses u of the State for each year: and whenever it shall happen that mich ordinary expenses ol ' > the State for any yeaf shall exceed the Income P-i of the suite for such year, the General Asp., sembly shall provido for levying a tax for re- the ensuing year sufficient, with other sources ox of income, to pay the deficiency of the pre,a't ceding year, together with the estimated expenses'of the ensuing year." After thus pro" vldlng for the expenses of the State governat ment. of course meaning the Government Ir. which was then to go lntooperatlon under the S. provisions of the Constitution of 18fW) dcslghe nated as "ordinary." In the seuse of current annual expenses, the Constitution proceeds, fcn in Section 7, to provido that "for the purpose . of defraying extraordinary expenditures, the V1 State may contract public debfs," that Is, foi un t\,? ?r,1nrM,vln? nil Avnnntll, i?- turesasdonot full within the class of ordi n, nary current annual expenses, the State may [c-r contract debts. It Is a mutter ol history thai cj_ upon the reorganization of tlie State Govern i ment of 18(18 that Government found itsel : : not only with an empty treasury but embarrassed with debts contracted by the Govern>ot ment to which it had succeeded, some o be which were floating in the shape of hills re [in ceivablc und bills of the Hank o( the Staf f I ) and some funded, upon which there was t ijg large arrearage of past due Interest. Thest . debt were manifestly no part of the ordinari current annual expenses of the SUito Govern lvu ment then going Into operation, which th< ice Constitution required should oe provided foi 9rs by an annual tax. and to obtain the means o >n, providing for such debts, as that Governmen was undoubtedly bound to do, It was abso ... Iutelv necessary that czlraorUinar/j expend! ,* lures should bo Incurred. This objection " therefore, does, not appear to us to bo wel of founded. ich 2d. The next ground Is that the Act it Tor question does not levy a tax annually sutll lict dent to pay the annual Interest of the debt (,-p the contracting of which it purports to au thorize,and is, therefore, fn violation of oni a ot the clauses of Sectlou 7, Article 0, of tin '?y Constitution. This objection is disposed o ely by the decision of this Court in the case o er. Morton, Bliss it Co. vs. Comptroller-Generaluly 4 S. C. Hep., WO. Whether that decision bi )(j- right or wrong, until overruled by compcten in_ authority it stands as an nuthoritativo con struction of those Sections of the Const! tutioi which are therein considered, binding no only upon every citizen of the State, but upoi of every tribunal which undertakes toadminis of ter its laws. To sfiy, as has been said, tliateacl of Judge has a light to determine for himsel i jje the proper construction of a clause of tin Constitution, regardless ot the constructloi which may have been placed upon it by supe the rfor autlio.ity, amounts to saying by THAT WE HAVE NO SETTLED LAW Bn ^ and that wc are living in a stato of anarchy It Is quite true that each Judge, as well a f. each of the other otHcers of the State, take , w an oath to observe the Constitution; but th 5r- Constitution Is not what he construes it ti the be, but what it is construed to be by the tri no bunai invested with the power to dctermln ;clj what Is the proper construction. As long a j human language remains imperfect, it i , absolutely essential that in every well ret '110 ! sv.timinnltv II vlncr under il written (.'oil slllution (here shouid be some tribunal of las |oh resort invested with the power to decide au jjV thoritatively upon the true ineatilmr of th ?y terms used in such Constitution. Here th Supreme Court is such tribunal, and when i 'J has determined the proper construction c ties any particular clause of the Constitution sucl Bee construction becomes the supreme law of th af- land, binding alike upon every citizen, ever; Jer olilcer and every department of the Stat ... Government until it la reversed or altered b; j" the proper authority?that is, by a subst 1, (iucih decision of the same tribunal, or b; >-s" f.bo Supreme Court of thfl L'iiited States ii he any of, those cj^cs which fall within the Juris iad diction of'that Court, Hut even were w ici now to overrule the decision in the case c p,]' Morton, Bliss & Co. vs. Comptroller-General ' that could not afl'ect the result in the case .r now before tiie Court. That decision wa l'10 rendered 27th August, 1873, and at the ver too next session of the General Assembly the At iefl was passed under which the bonds were is the sued svhlch are now called in questloni Thes ,ne parties, therefore, must be regarded as hav iu . i ing acted upon the faith of the law, as it wa then authoritatively declared to be, ana tnei . rights cannot be affected by imy subscquon LS change in the law, whether such change b cni effected by statute or Judicial decision. Suet ids at least, is declared to be the law by the Su di- promt* Court of the United States, which, a jjxt wo have ceen, claims and exercises the rlgh final ly to decide such questions as we are noi considering. or" The ruie, as stated by Taney, (!. J., In Ohi 8<!!4 Life Insurance and Trust Company vs. i)e icli bolt, <10 How., at page 4S-.',) is iw follows ho "Thesound and true rule is that If the eon un. tract when made was valid by the laws of th ke State,sn then expounded by all the depart i.ij inentsof its government and administered ii ItsG'ourtsof Justice, Its validity ami obliga tion cannot be impaired by any sub'sequen l:at Act of the Legislature or decision of it <ed Courts altering the construction of the law.' udt Tills rule was recognized and allinned In th same terms inGclpcke vs. Dubuque, (i Wall at page 2M,) uud to it was added tlio follow , Ing language; "The same principle applic leri where there Is a ciiarge of judicial decision a c'r" to the constitutional power of the Leglslatur (99 to enact the law. To tills nlle, thus enlarged ic't we adhere. It Is the law of this Court. I rut rests upon the plainest principles of (ustict bat To hold otherwise would be as unjust as ti i hold that rights acquired under a statute ma; Jr.. be lost by Its repeal." Tills rule was agali m a HI ri i ed 1 n t Ii e ease of Lee Cou n ty vs.- Roger? the (7 Wall., 181,) and the question was tlier So, said to be not open for reexamination In th of Supreme Court of the United State's. It i lot perfectly manifest, therefore, that even wer 1(?K wc now to overrule the case of Morton, Bits. l, > & Co. vs. Comptroller-6encr.il, It could no , help the casoipf the Suite, In view of the rul bi) thus lirmly established, whether correctly o to not we are not called upon to say, ea- by the tribunal ok last resort. ; It Is argued, however, that the decision li )a'- the case of Morton, IIIiss .t Co. vs. Comptrol rn/- ler-General Is confined to the five bonds thcr ill- considered, noncof which are under consider the ation here. Tills, we think, is an entire nils "it conception of the effect of that decision or What Is said In that casein regard to con fining the remedy there applied for to tin | particular bonds mentioned in the pleadings '/> manifestly was not Intended to have, am OT- could riot have, the effect of confining th< im, operation of the decision of the various con pal stltutional questions there discussed to thi jjjj, five bonds there in issue. A court of Justice .. when allied upon to administer a reined* ., under a statute which Is alleged to be uncoil iae stltutional, must first determine whether tin statute Is liable to the objection urged agalns led it, and, having determined that question, i is- then proceeds to inqtrirc whether the partiei !on In Ihe case havr* shown themselves entitled t< ill- such remedy. The twolnqulrles are entirely distinct ami separate. Whether the object lot * urged against the constitutionality of the Ac "I1" Is well founded isone thing, and whether thi rly parties in the particular ease have sliowt hi- themselves entitled to the remedy which th< M. Act purports to give rise to is quite anothei tiling. The decision of the one question wai an authoritative construction of a partlculai , clause of the Constitution, w hich neccssarilj lu" affects every one, while the decision of tin l,ie othar question could only affect the parties ids then before the Court. The decisions'of tin led various constitutional questions raised in the )n- case must necessarily bcconclusivc whenevei i,e tho same questions arise in any other case ' r though theappilcatlon'of the remedy claimec 01 i aa ivtiinu-imr iVnm sueii decision must be con' -^e fined to tiio particular parties who hud shown ft themselves entitled to sueh remedy. of ;kl. The next ground upon which this Acl 73, is claimed to bo unconstitutional is that hill* recelvablearc bills of credit, and are, there fore, within the prohibition contained in Sec . tion 10, Article 1. of the Constitution, of the , United States, which declares that "nfl State ?j shal * * * emit bills of credit." Whether nd bills receivable arc bills of credit within tl/c ro- meaning of that claasc of the Constitution ol in,' the United Slates Is not Important for us now 0f toconsider, inasmuch as such a question is, ,l in our Judgment, wholly Immaterial to the " Inquiry In which we are engaged. It will be lc: observed that the prohibition is against the "d i.sxuc of such bills?not against their payment, no, if, therefore, these bills are of the character lie claimed for them, It may bo that they would to he invalid t>nd worthless as legal obligations on in the hands of those who happened to A i hold them, and that if the question were r whether the payment of such oills could be 111 enforced, or whether the olllcers of the Stat J 'S-'should bo restrained Irom Issuing them, the )2- position taken by tlio Attorney-General would of oo entitled to great consideration. Such, howba ever. Is not the question. It Is not, and canju not be, denied that these bills were Issued by tho proper otlleers of the State under an Act of the General Assembly purporting to confer ?V authority for so doing, and that the State reiv celved full value for them. When the state of government, was reorganized In lsi>s, they nd found these bills outstanding, and even though It should be admitted that they 111,' WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN FOKM, tly they nevertheless represented valid and bma )T- /We indebtedness of the State. If the State nn! saw fit, voluntarily, to recognize such Indebtyj! Oilness, jven though It stood in a forni which f .itlectcd its legal obligation, and provide for ,* I paying it or funding it In a form to which M" | there could be 110 constitutional objection, we sre! cannot conceive how such acton the part ol a j the State, in conformity as it was tothe Plainchest dictates of common honesty, can be reou I Kardfd as in violation rf the Constitution ol :n ' (lie United States. So far from emitting or isI Ruing paper supposed to be within theprohi^"Ibition of that Constitution, the State, <;fi the | contrary, made provision lor the wltinliawal st,; of such paper from circulation and replacing :e-j It with other evidences of indebtedness In a ie form which would not be ameuable to such IU : constltui'Onal objection. .... I 4th. Thd ncxtgrouhd of objection is that ^ the Actiu qulstlou was not pasued by the re qnlslte constitutional mnjorlty, by which Is si meant that the Journal of the Senate does r not show a vole of two-thirds of all of the members In favor of Iho passage of the Act, but only shows a vote of two-thlrds'of Uiote f< voting?a. quorum of that body. Thin objec- P Hon 1h also disposed of by the decision in the J' wise of Morton, Bliss & Co. vs. Comptroller- { ' General, aud it Is not necessary to repeat here h what we hove already saUl in regard to the o effect of thedeclsion. Inasmuch,however,as J this seems to be one of the principal grounds \ of objection to that decision, we may add that It is not without the support of very high au- J1 thorlty upon this point. 8e6 County of Cass J. vs. Johnston, 0.5 U. S. Rep., 360. The next Act, the constitutionality of c which is called In question, is "An Act to au- 1 thorize a State loan to pay Interest oil the 0 public debt," ratilied August 20, 1808/ 14 j1 Stat., 19. This Act Is assailed upon the first ?' and second grounds upon which the foregoing 1 Act was attacked, and It is not deemed neces- * sary to add anything to what we havo said * above, except to tay that while current Inter- 8 est upon the public debt may properly lull H within the class of "ordinary" expenses, yet v the Interest provided forin this Act not being J the current interest It cannot be placed In t that class, and must, therefore, fall Into the v class of "extraordinary expenditures;'' for it J will be remembered that while provision had s been made by the Act of September 21, MOO, J (IS Stat., 801.) as supplemented by the Act of J December 20, 1800, (13 Stat., 421,) for funding J tne interest on the public debt up to July 1, * 1807, there would be no provision for the in- f tercst which accrued from July 1, 1807, to 1 November 1, lftiO, the beginning of the first ) tlscal year of the government as then reorgan- ' ized, unless the Act which we are now consid- r erlng be regarded as Intended to provide for ? , such interest. It is a mistake to suppose ' that provision was made by taxation for J such interest by the ApiVbpriatlon Act of 1 March 23, 1809, (14 SUit.. 2:17,> for that Act r was expressly declared to be an Act to make 8 appropriations for the year commencing In Oc- c tober, 1808, and hence no appropriation made c by that Act could be regarded as made for the | payment of in terest accrued prior to October, 1 1808. Then, too, the very language used in ^ Section 7 or that Act?"For the payment of j1 the interest on the public debt accrued since | the same was last funded, tlve hundred thou- J sand dollars"?shows that such appropriation j was not designed to pay INTKHESr ACCRUED PBtOU to October. 1868. The Interest was first fund- t ed?by the Acts of 1800, above cited?up to July 1, 1807; then the Interest wliicn 1 accrucd between July 1,1807, and the 1st of November, 1808, the commencement of the t tlrst tlscal year of the reorganized State gov- ^ eminent, was provided for by the Act now ? 1 under consideration, and must be regarded as t the last funding of interest; aim tnc interest 1 for the year commencing In October. IStfS, is < provided for by the Appropriation Act of t ; March !?), 1M9, above cited ; while by the Act of Miirch 1,1870, (it Slat., .*feC2,) an appropria! tton is made to pay the Interest on the public debitor the year commencing November 1, c 1*69; and so on, from year to year as long as ( the General Assembly saw tit to provide for 1 ' tho payment of interest on the public debt. I ; Nor can any argument be drawn from the | fact that the amount authorized to bo raised 1 ' by the Act now under consideration largely i exceeded the estimate presented by the Comp- < troller-General at the beginning of the rcgu- I lar session of 18(58-9 of the amount of interest I ' due on the/lrrtof October, 1868, for that was i 1 only an astimale, anditmlght very well have I been supposed that such estimate, made so ! ' soon after the reorganization of the State < ' government by an oillcer who had had no pre- < " vlous acquaintance with the operations ot the ! government which hud been superseded, 1 would not prove to be correct, and hence the 3 Act under consideration mixht very well give \ ' authority to the Governor to borrow a sum " not cxceedlnESl.OJO.OO, especially when such ] authority was qualified by the words "or to ' r much thereof as Ac may deem necessary." And ! it must bo remembered that such estimate ' 1 dlij not Include the Interest ror me monin 01 ' October, nor did it include any Interest upon ' such additions to the public debt as had been I authorized by Acts passed at the preceding 1 extra scsolon. , The next Act which we propose to consider 1 is "An Act to close the operations of the IJank " of theState." ratified loth September, 1808. (14 Stat., 22.) The counsel for the State discuss ' this Act as If the bonds Issued uuder its au1 thority crcated a new debt on the part of the J State, and, therefore, contend that its consti tutionality must be tested by the provisions ' of Section 7, Article 0, of the Constitution, for " they urge the same objections as were urged ? against the foregoing Acts, But the Act now 1 In question does not purport to create any ?iew debt. It does not even authorize the bor] rowing of money to pay an old debt. Itslm ply authorizes the funding of certain obliga1 tions for which the State was liable, then out' standing. In the shape of bills of tbe bank, 'a j. the bonds authorized by the Act. In other 1 words, instead of authorizing the issue of c bonds to raise money to pay outstanding 1 debts, it simply authorizes the change ol the " form of such indebtedness from BANK HILLS TJO BONDS, and its constitutionality must be test. ed by the provisionsof Section 10, rether than s Section 7, of Article 0 of the Constitution, s Such objections cannot, therefore, be sustaino e<i. Another ground of objection, however, & is that these bills were not "stock, bonds or - other evidences of Indebtedness of the State, e Issued by it," and the Act is, for that reason, s ,in violation of tho provisions of Section 10, s Article 0, of the Constitution. It is quite true that these bank bills Were not either stocks i- or bonds ?f the State, but we are at a loss to t conceive how any one can deny, in view of - the provisions of the bunk charter that, such c bills were "evidences of indebtedness," which e though not previously issued dlreclljj by the t State, were Issued by a corporation created by tf the state/In which it was the sole slockholdh er, under express authority from theState, for c the sole benetit of theState. For the charter y I expressly provided t hat "the faith of the State e is hereby pledged for the support of the said y bank, and to supply any deficiency in the - funds specially pledged, and to make good all y i losses arising from ouch deficiency." 8 Stat., ii 24; Of course it must be remembered that (.I the liability of tiie Slate for these bills was o | incurred under a Constitution which did not rf impose the same limitations upon the power I, of tbe General Assembly to contract debts as s are contained In the Constitution of 1WS, and s #the State having, under ttie previous Constly ttttion, Incurred n liability, evidenced by .'i thf'sc bank bills, issued by its authority, wc| i-1 see no reasou why the present State governe|ment, under the present Constitution, may . not change tne form of such liability by eonx verting these "evldcflices of Indebtedness" In r the sliape of bank bills Into bonds. t The next Act to be considered Is "An Act to e authorize U loan for the relief of theTreasui ry." approvad 17th February. lXfil);?H Stat., . lCS'J. This Aet we regard as liable to two Con* s stltutional objections ; 1st. It purports to cre[ | ate a debt which was not for the purpose of v j defraying extraordinary expenditures:" and, j 2d, the debt therein sought to be created is 0 i not "for some xlnyle object,-' and such object . | Is not "distinctly specified therein," and it is, ; therefore. In violation of two of the clauses i- of section 7, Art. ii, of the Constitution. As e ! we have already seen, provision had previous| ly been made for the redemption of the bills n i receivable and for the payment of the interI est on the public debt then In arre.u, and we t j are not aware of any otherexpenditure which s the General Assemoly were then called apon " I to provide for which could properly be classed e j amongst "extraordinary expenditures," and I none such have been suggested to us. The | most natural Inference Is that the object of s j this Act was to raise money to meet the curs I rent demands upon the Treasury, in antlcipae lion of I he collect ion of the taxes levied for l_ that purpose, and stich demands, as we have 1 seen, full into the class of ordinary expenses, and cannot, therefore be regarded as "extraorr," dlnary expenditures." Again, the debt l- which this Act purports to authorize cannot rj be said to be "for some single object," nor is it such "distinctly specified therein." e MONEY BOIIUOWKJ) Q i miiof r\f fhft TrMfitiPv" miirht c nutl would be applied to as many dlfH ferenn objects us there were demands upon t the Treasury. We think, therefore, that this e Act clearly violate both clauses of the Cotistlr tution above referred to, and, upon the principles heretofore announced In this opinion, every bond, together with Its coupons. Issued under the authority of this Act Is absolutely 1 void even In the hands of a btrta Jkte holder - because issued without any authority whate ever, and lienceevery consolidation bond rest ing upon such bonds or coupons is, to the ex tent that It does rest upon such bonds or cotii. pons, not a valid debt of the State of S<yuth i? Carolina. e The next Act which we propose to consider i, is "An Act to provide for the appointment of J a land commissioner and to'define his powers e | and duties," approved 27th March, 1860, (14th -1 Statutes, 275) arrd the Act amendatory thcroJ of, approved 1st March, 1S70. (14tb Statutes, , ;{.* .) The constitutionality of the Acts is as! siilled: 1st. Upon the ground'that they relate - to more than one subject, rtnd such subjects 2 are not expressed In their titles, and they are, t therefore, In violation of Scction 20, Article 2, t of theSonstltirtion. This objection has uls ready been disposed of by the decision in the ) case of Morton. Ulfs^ & Co. vs. Comptrollcrr | General, to which juuy be added the case of l; San Antonio vs. Mehatlcy, (%' U. S. Reports, t .112.) In vrhieh the Supreme Court or ttfe Unl3 ted States put the suirte cousrructlon upon a 11 similar clause in tlje Constitution of the State ) | of Texas. 2d. Upon the ground that these r I Acts were not passed by the requisite const i< tutlonrl majority?that Is, by the vote 0V two r thirds of all the members of each branch of M the General Assembly?but only by the vote ; i of two-thirds of tiic mcmljers voting, being a | i [ quorum. This ground has been already eon- I ; | sidercd and disposed of. 3d.' Another objec' i tlon, however, is that It does not appear that r I the vote upon the p;issage of tlie first of these . two Acts now tindor consideration was ente;'l ed upon the Journal of the House of Koprc sentatlves as is required by Seetlou 7, Article t IX, of the Constitution', which, In speaking j of Acts authorizing the ' CONTUACTING OF I'CBT.IC DEBTS, .) provides that "no such law shall take cfTCot j . until it shall have been passed by tho vote of' , two-thirds of the members of each brench of j . | the General Assembly, to be recorded, by yeai; ! and nays, on (he Jailmate of each home retpeef- j . i ivelyThis provision, it will bo obsorved, Is 1 f I more stringent than that contained in sec. 21, i Art. 11, provlning that "no Bill shall have the .(forceof laws until it shall have been read i three times, and on three several days. In J eaeli house." In the former, the Constitution i expressly requires, not only that such law shall be passed by n vote of two-thirds of the i | members, but also that such vote shall "be reI corded, by ycus <n(d lirn/i, on the Jorurfials of | each house," whjlein tho latter the require11mentsimply is that the l!ill shall be read! ,i thtee times, and there Is no rcqnlrement that j , [ the fact thut it has been so read shall be re-'' , corded on the Journal. Hence, while it | I would be eotltely legitimatcthat an Act which i lias the great seal 01 the State olllxed to it has ,i been signed by the presiding olllcers of tho ;1 , | two houses, approved by the Governor, or, In i tile absence of such approval, certified to by] tlio Secretary of State as having become a law \ I by reason of the failure of the Governor to rc-!, turn it within the time required hy tho Con, j stitution, deposited in the archives of the;1 ; State ami published among the laws, nnder' tbcsiiperintcmienoe of the Secretary of state | isa vHiltVlaw, even though tho Journals may ; notafllrmatlvcly show that the Act was read 1 three times, as we have decidcd in the Case of :I City Council of Chnrlcton vs. tlie Grand (i Lodge of A. F. M., and as been decided by the : Supreme Court of Illinois under a similar clause !n the Constitution of tbat.Statc, (tiiej Supervlsors.of Schuyler County vs. the Pco' pie. 2.') III., 181,)yet whdn the Constitution ex-; pressly requires that the vote upon the pas-!' ' sage of a Hill shall be entered upon tho Jour nal,and the Journal docs not contain such entry, there Is no room lor inference, but " there is positive proof of the omission of one of the constitutional requirements, and, In I such a case, the Hill would fail to become a law.?Town of South ( Utowa vs. l'erkins, !M i U. S. Hep., -OH, in which the Illinois <Lases art; . ' I collected, and from them it will appear that I ; the Supreme Court of that State draws the,. | same distinction that we have done. If, j i therefore, the objection which wcorc now con- ; ! sideling he well founded in fact, it is well ta-, ken. It appears to us howevar, from an in / 7 pectlon of the Journal of the House of - Rep? escntatlvcs, that there Is NO FOUNDATION IN FACT >r the objection. It is quite true thai on age 423 of House Journal ror the sessions of #58-60 it docs not appear that the vote on tho hlrd reading of the original Bill was t&ken y yeas and nays on the Journal, butit is very bvlous that this was not tho vote upon the fill as it finally passed, for an inspection of be Senate Journal for the same sesMon, paces 21-528. will sliow tbat the Bill which came rom the Honsc was entirely remodeled, and ho House Journal, page* shows that ho BUI, as thus remodeled, was Anally pass* d by a two-thirds vote?yeas 50, nays 11?and hat such vole was recorded by yeas and nays n the Journal of the house. This we regard s a substantial compliance with tht; provlsons of the Constitution, more so, in fact, han'll the Journal slrnply showed the pasagoof the Bill as It originally went from the louse by a two-thirds vote and did not show uch a vote upon the final passage of the Bill fter It ivnj? amended in the Senate, for tne otc o.i tho Bill na It wert from the Houko pould not show the asaent of the requisite wo-tblrds of that body to the provision ^ yhlch eventually became the law, while the t otc upon the Bill after It was amended in the tenate did show such assent, and this is tho eal object of thatclauseof the Constitution. t seems to have been the practice of the louse of Representative* at the time theso Vets were passed, contrary to what had been irevlously the practice, to read Bills originaIng In the Mouse three times before they vcresentUi the Senate, whereas under th* ormer practice after a Bill had received two eadings in the House It jras sent to the Sen ite for its consideration, and,if attended In hat body, such amendments could be codsidsrod when tbo bill came back to the House brlts third reading. BUt under the other >ractice, where a bill has been so materially iltered In the Senate as the one under sonalajratlon seems to have been, it would practl?11 v defeat the very object of tho constltu lonal provision now under consideration 10 lold that a two-thirds vote on the BUI as it vent from the House after its third reading here wonld satisfy the requirements of such )rovislons. For it might frequently happen, ust as it did happen in reference to the very Vet we are discussing, that its features might )e very materially changed id theBenatc and otally new provisions inserted, which might >e paused by a mere majority of a qnomm in he House, and the various provisions of thd Vet would not in fact tiaVe what tb's provlson of the Constitution trasintended tosecurd -the assent of two-thlrqs of both branches of he General Assembly t8 all the various pro. Isions of the Act; so that when the Journals show, as they do in reference to the Act tinier consideration,tqat the Bill, as amended, ecelved thbassentof the requisite two-thlrdd >f both brahches of the General Assemby, wo hinii the constitutional requirement was VL'LLY COM^LIJKD WITH. As to the "Act to provide for the conversion )f State securities," approved 23d March, I86H; U.Stat., 211,) It not being an Act to author* 1A the borrowing or money or the contracts ng of any new debt, but simply providing 'or a chance in the form of that then existi ug* he question o( the validity of the bonds Is* uied under it must be det&rmlaed by an inlulry Into tbe validity of the securities there-! In authorized to be converted. 8o that any bond issued under this Act Which-waa not Issued In exchange for some then existing valid debt of the State, In the form of slocks or bonds, was iscued '-without any authority of. law." and is, therefoie, absolutely void even In the hnnds of a bona fide holder. The "Act to authorize TUB FINANCIAL AOBHT . of the State of South Carolina to pledge State. bonds as collateral security, and for other purposes," approved 28tb March, 1808, (14 Stat; ijS.) will next be considered It is not pre- v i* tended that the object of this Act was to authorize the issue of any bonds or the contract; Ingof any additional debt, for 1U sole purpose seems to have been to authorize the Financial Agent to dispose of the bonds, the Is sue of which had been previously or auouia be thereafter authorised, in a particular way; This Act, therefore, aid not come within the provisions of Section 6, Article 9, of the Constitution, and the fact that It waa not pawed by a two? thirds voW can not affect Its validity, In Section 14, Artlcio 6, the Constitution prescribes that "Any debt contracted by theStatd shall be by loan on State bonds," but how * such loans are to be eftected is left to the dlsr cretion of the General Assembly. Whether they shall be a*ateof the bonds, (the most questionable mode, if the words above quoted be given in a rigid literal interpretation J by f direct borrowing as in Case of one individual borrowing from his neighbor a thousand dollar's and giving bis bona directly to the lend- . t er for theamount, fa mtfdeso inconvenient in * case of a State as to be itlmost impracticable or by a deposit of the bonds as collateral security for such sums a* may from time Id ? time ba advanced totbciiitato as lttf necessities require, are all matters which are left for the General Assembly to determine. We do not s see, therefore, how the Act now under confident lion can be Regarded as In conflict with any provision of the Constitution. The lust objection Which is urged against all the bonds Issued undfer the several Acta which we hbve been considering is, that they were ' ' not registered in c tin fori ty M the provisions of Section 14 of Article 9 of tbfe .Constitution. The language of that section is aa follows: "Any debt created, by the State shall be by loan on State bonds of amobnts not lesspian fifty dollars each, on Intertat, payable within t wenty yean after the final passage Of the law dutborizlng such debt. A CORRECT REGISTRY of all such bonds slirill tfe kept by lhe "treasurer, in numerical order, so as always to exhibit the number and amount unpaid, and to whom severally payable."' It Is very manifest that this provision in regard to tun registry of the bonds is mere direction to tbo Treasurer, und was not designed to be a condition precedent, the perfiormanco -of - which shodld be necessary to the validity of the, bonds; It does not provide that before any biihil It isnrucd it Shall be Registered by the Treasurer, but it is clear that the rcgistratiou Is to follow, not precede/ the issue of the. bonds, and could not, therefore aflect their validity. So othtfr construction is consistent with tlio language used, for it will be observed that the treasurer Is not Only required to" keep such a registry, but he is to keep Ifsof as always to cthibit the nximbet afd amount nrv jxu'fi." Now us the mode of keeping the registry must be regarded as quite as imperative' as the direction to keep it. it must be manifest. tr \t It never waa designed (ftta this provision of tbo Constitution slnufld be regarded as osential to the validity ctf the bonds, for in order to keep such registry "so as a'woyi hi v " exhibit lite liiimbct and ambtml unpaid?' it M would, of course, be iiecessary for the treosur- M er to matte alterations in the registry, from ^ timctot'me, rw one or rtioJc of the bonds were paid; and surely It WCUld not bo pretended {tint the failure 6f that officer to keep the registry lii sucbtnodc, D'Y xAKiao-evtn Ai/rstations as frtym timetsiQ time biscame necessary, would JntoTf8bor c*s which otherwise w<fuW aave lieen gool. The Constitution was neytf.-deiigued to afford the means of settings uxfrfpr tjbe holders of the bonds of thosuUdHpnekiugthefr rights depend-. ent upon tbfSPrforn) ftnee op rfon-performance, of duty by one of the officers' of tue State after Our ertSSKfons, therefore, are: 1st; TUmWI the bonds tssned under an Act. entitled "All Act to reduce the volume of the. public debt and provide for the payment of the same" are valid obligations of the State of South Carolina, except as foTfows : , 1st.' .Such as were Issued In exchange for bond's ls^ sued under tho Act entitled "Aq. Act to authocize a loan for tho relief of the Treasury," or for the coupons of such bones. 2d Sacti as were Issued in exchange for the second issue of bonds under an Act entitled "An Act to uuth'orlze a State loan to pay Interest on thepubllo de)jt." cfrthecouponsoT suoh bonds.. 3d. Such as were Issued in exchange for those conversion bo'nds which were issued In exchange for either of the two classes of bonds. last mentioned, viz, boads for relief of the Treasury nrVd the second issu^ tff bonds to pay interest on the public debt, or In cxc|fange for the coupons of iucli conversion bonus. j 2d. If ftny consolidation bond jests wholly upon arfy of tho three objectlonAle dosses of bonds or coupons lust mentioned, tnen it IS" wholly void; but if It rests only In part upon such objectionable bonds and coupons, then H Is only void to tho'exterit which It does rest opon such objectionable bonds or coupons, aiul for the balance it is a Valid obligation.of the State. 3d. That tl7c bnrden of proof Is upon tho State to show that any particular bond whlchr may be brought into question does reSt either. In whole tir In part upon such objectlondblo bonds or coupons, a^d ff in part only, then' the Stuto must show what part Is affected. The Judgment of the Conrt of Clafma is set aside,, and the cases are remanded to thut. Court for such furter proceedings as may be necessary Uttfler the principles herein an-' Dounced.' i concur. . A. j. Willabd, C.'JV . Ieotrcur In the general rosults reached by, a majority o? tho Co"urt, blft dissent from the ?? exceptions made With regard to .particular '* classes of bonds included within the terms of the Cohsolidfttfon Act. . . .. a. C, haskkll, a. j. Filed'Septcmbir 27, 1879. AiBERT M. Boozeb, M P ? P STATE OF SOUTH CARftLIM County cf Abbeville. IN THE PIIOBATX, COURT. j la the raattcrof the Estate of Drucilla Frank-' Hn, Deceased. NOTICE is hereby given' that J. J. Cooper. and W. G. smtth, Administrators of ihe, ?' estate <>f Drucilla FrankllA, deceased, have liled their petition .In this .Court' praying that a day may be fixed for the, settlement of the said estate and discharge of the AdmlnUtrutors i . i i * It Is Ordered, that Frldsty the 7th of November, 1K79, bb fixed a$ the day for the settlement. of the estate of tfie said deceased, and the discharge of the Administrators aforesaid. J. FULL^U LYON, Judge of Probate, A. C. AbbeviHo C. II.; S. C., t Oritob^r 1,1879, Ot. ]* NOTICE -TOMlm Janes I Maliry, M- \ ALL persons indebted to the Estato of Dr.* JAMES F. MABRY, deceased, cither by note or account are .requested to come for-, ward and pay tfiesamc at an early day to the undersigned or to my agent Dr. J. W. KELLEli. Those neglectinjf to heeid t^ts notlco will find their notes and adcodnts In tho hands of an Attorney fbr collection, as fur-' thef indulgence will not be giveii. MRS. M. J. MABRY, Administratrix. Oct. 1, 1879. tt "" NW SUPPLY OF PAPER AND ENVELOPES, at reduced prices. Edwin Parker. Oct. 1,1879, tf PAPIER PAPEETAND"ENVELOPES. IN FANCY BOXES, fron 10c to GOc per box, and VISITING CAHDS. Edwin Parker. Oct. 1.1879, tf ELSIE'S BAKING POWDER ?AT? Edwin Parker, ^ Oct. 1,1879, tr i