New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-04-30

ties come forward and say, We will &C
cept this appropriation and 90 the work
and the Legislature shall give Us certiH-
Gates that we have done If, and when the
funds appropriated for the purpose come
in. ". will take our pay. We ask no new
nledpe on the part Of the State; We are
content with the provision it has already
made for defraying the cost of the work,
and will risk getting our pay from that.
But our cores pondent seems resolved not
to understand that the Constitution recog-
nizes and permits the contracting of a loan
on the credit of fund as something dis
tipct from a loan on the credit of the State
itself, and yet tbati the point at issue.
When the Constitution was formed the
present vehement opposers of the Canal
bill did not consider the twelfth section Of
the seventh article as forbidding any such
srticipatory use Of the Canal revenues as
the bill provides for. 1t was their desire
that such use should be prohibited, and in
order TO effect it ATphaxed LOOMS of Her
kimer offered the following as an additional
section:
The surplus revenues of the Canals, after com
plying with the provisions Of the two last p'ece'
ding sections, shall be appropriated at the dscre-
ton of the legislature TO defray the ordinary ex
penses Of Government and for other purposes
but DO law shall be passed approPrating or pledg
ing for the construction or improvement OF any
Canal or Railroad any parts Of such revenues BE-
yond those Of the current year at the tine Of the
passing Of such lGp.
The meani.,g of this is obvious, and had
it been adopted there is no doubt the pro-
posed bill would be unconstitutional. But
the Convention rejected it, by vote of 81 to
SO, and Nh L. S. Chat6eld, now Attorney
General, gave notice that he should again
attempt to have it adopted, but it was not
accomplished. This proves that such an
anticipation of the revenues of the Canals
as the bill provides for was considered by
the Convention and that it was not thought
proper to prohibit it, either as creating q
debt against che State or on other grounds.
The debt originally contracted for the
construction of the Canal, and for which
sundry revenues were pledged, had this
essential difference from the proposed GER
tifcates, that if those revenues had failed
the State itself must stand up to the mark
and pay the debt. In the present case the
State will never have to pay, under any
circumstances. This our correspondent
admits, but tries to imagine State respon-
sibility, on the ground that some new in
vention may perhaps supersede the Canals
and render them useless. That is risk
which the contractors would do well to
consider, and which we presume they will
duly consider before doing the work, but
" Truth must indeed have dark appre-
hension when he says that, if the State
should not pay in such a case, it would be
accused of Mississippi reputation, and
made to pay from mere shame. We have
always understood that Mississippi repu-
dated her own direct and legal obligations;
this we take to be a very different thing
from declining to pay what is no obhga-
ton at all, ard is most expressly under
stood and admitted to be such from the
beginning.
In the case which Truth" supposes, il
the appropriation for his sons house had
been confirmed and sanctifed by an ire
vocable bond, and if the party building the
house did the work, relying exclusively
on the appropriation made by that bond for
his pay, without recourse to father or son
or anybody, we should not say that
Truth had got in debt for the house,
and we don't believe he would say so
himself.