The Nevada Democrat., 1857-12-30
WHOLE NO. 221.
opinion as would appear from the following sK-

to the plan of funding debt as in violation Of vested
rights and as mpairng the obligation of contracts weeen
ground which iusti6ss all extreme measures, that Of
| cessity"
If such case can be conceived of, certainly
no such necessity exists at present. The Con-
sttution of this State provides that "No law
impairing the obligation of contracts shall ever
be passed" If o law authorizing the funding
Of the indebtedness Of the county would impair
the obligation of contracts, then 1t is unconsti-
tutional, should never be passed, and If passed
would be altogether void and of no effect i
regard such q law as constitutional, unohjec-
tionabls under the present circumstances and
as clearly sanctioned by the decisions Of the Su-
preme Court. La Hunsacker VS.. Borden, Cal.
Reps. 28S, there is . case in point. The Legis-
lature passed an act in Feb. 1855, providing
that Contra Costa county might fund the debt
accruing up to lst Feb 1855 and that it should
be paid by funding only. q
The law an to the registration Of warrants aud
the priority of payments was the same as now.
The PHI. obtained mandamus to require the
Deft the Treasurer Of Contra Costa county, 10
pay certain warrants drawn on the County Trea-
surer in 1861 II was urged by the Plff that
the act of Feb 1856 ''impaired the obligation Of
contracts" aud was therefore unconstitutional.
The Court said no, 1.-THE obligation to pay was
fully acknowledged, the change was in the
mode and time of payment. In the present case
the State has exercised o legitimate and unques-
tionable power She has provided TO fund the
debt in o manner which prptectsthe debt0rfrom
loss and which will in time relieve the County
Treasury from its burden of indebtedness by .
plan which indicates the soundsst Legislative tusdon
The holders Of warrants on the County Treas
ury are not compelled to accept bonds for them
or in other words to fund them, they are simply
left unprouidea for in any other Ody" This decis-
ion was rendered at the July term 1855 ra
In the case of Mccall We, Hains. July term
1885, the question was as TO priority of paymen
of warrants, the Court held the Board Of Super
pisors could not set apart the revenue OF the
year or any part thereof as fund for the cur
rent expenses of the year, but that the whole
revenue might thus have been applied by the
Legislature. In Laforge vs. McGhee at the
same term similar question arose. The Court
held that as by law warrants drawn on the Trea-
sury were required to be paid in the order OF
their registry the Supsrpsrs could not change
the order of payment In Laforge vs.. McGhee
at the Oct. term 1856, the Court decided that
'at the time Laiorge presented bis warrants for
payment there being money ia the Treasury
appropriated under previous existing law for
that purpose his right became fixed and could
not be destroyed by subsequent Legislative en-
aetment" The Court in this case decided that
when there was money in the Treasury and de-
manded that it should have been paid out At
the time, that law subsequently passed to fund
noy in the Treasury previous to the passage Of
such law, and appropriated by virtue Of prior
law.
But this decision does not conflict with the
decision in Hunsacker VS.. Borden that the Leg
islature have right to determine the appro-
priaticn Of the revenue accrung after the pas
sage Of such law. In Laforge vs.. McGhee tho
same case as the above at the January term
1857 on motion for re hearing the Court say
1t was our intention that the Judgment should
90 TO this extent. that the Treasurer should pay
upon the warrants according to tho order OF
registration from their presentation whatever
funds came into his hands up to the passqgeof said
act" The act referred to did not appropriate the
future revenue of the county to pay the current
expenses but authoriz I'd the Board OF .Supervi-
sors so to do Aud the Court held that until
the Board of Supervisors had made an order APP
proprating the incoming revenue Of the county
that the Plff. was entitled to be paid out OF tho
moneys in the Treasury up TO the date Of such
order. This is the last decision of which am
aware in relation to funding county debt aud
the priority Of payment Of county warrants.
The sum aud substance of the various decisions
are to these points.
1st. That the Legislature has right to enact
law appropriating all revenue accruing after
the passage Of such law to future expenditure.
2nd. That tho legislature can authorize the
Board of Supervisors, from and after such time
as they may make an order, to appropriate such
| revenue in the same way.
3rd. That as there is q law providing that
County warrants shall be paid in the order Of
their registration and presentation, when the
moneys are in the Treasury to pay such war;
rants no Legislation can divert such money
from the purpose to which it was appropriated,
Such are the points decided, If understand
them.
Now, if am right in my views Of the decis-
H.. - l. I'll
1855, this question was decided clearly aud dis
tnctly. The Judges are not supposed to make
laws. but to declare in litigated cases what are
the laws. Therefore this must be regarded as
the law from the first Legislation in this State.
and after the views Of the Court, expoundng
this subject had once been judcially published,
no person is justified in pleading ignorance Of
his rights Then we come to this conclusion,
that as q matter of economy, right and fair deal
ing for all parties. the debt the County should
be funded, and that there are no constitutional
object ons to having it done under the authority
Of the legislature.
bill funding the County debt should em-
brace the following principles:
LIST. The debt should be funded payable In 90
short time as the people can we'll pay
End. That it should be payable in annual in
stalments upon fixed rate per cent, and that
per cent should be such as TO pay the accruinR
expenses in cash, and leave balance each year
to pay the interest and portion OF the princi-
pal.
3rd. That the interest should be the same as
on the warrants, 10 per cent
4th. That the warrants should be funded In
the order Of their registration.
Now, within what time and upon what rate
per cent Of taxation can the debt be paid, pay
ing the current expenses in cash. with a reason
able regard to the ability OF the county. In
the consideration Of this question. it is necessa-
ry to know the whole amount of taxation Of the
State and County. in order to correctly under
stand how to distribute the burthen-when to
stop short Of the last feather that breaks the
camel's back AS before stated, the whole
amount of property tax this year, for all pur-
noses. State and County. is S5950I a4 being