The Nevada Democrat. [volume] (Nevada, Calif.) 1854-1863, 1857-03-04

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday last, rem
dered decision in the Capitol contract case, in
which they declare the law passed by the last
Legislature to provide for the building Of
State House. unconstitutional and void. Two
opinions, both arriving at the same conclusions,
were delivered-one by Judge Burnett, and the
other by Judge Murray. The whole State debt
with the exception of that portion contracted by
the first Legislature, and the balance d7e on the
war debt, Is declared unconstitutional and void,
and the only way in which it can be legalizcd
is by submitting a law for that purpose, to d.
rect vote Of the people.
Many have contended, both in and out of
the Legislature, that the eighth article of the
Constitution, which prohibits the Legislature
from contracting any debt which in the aggre-
gate, shall exceed three hundred thousand dol.
lars, does not apply to the ordinary expenses of
the government, and could not have been so in
tended. The Court, however, decides that this
article does apply to the ordinary expenses Of
the State government, and the reasoning of both
the Judges seem to be conclusive. Upon this
point Judge Murray says:
"Having already decided that the 9Th article
IL not directory, l shall next assume that 1t ap-
plies to the current and necessary expenses of
the government. This conclusion, think, is
most obvious and warranted by familiar rules
of construction. If not intended to apply to
the ordinary expenses of the State, the article is
entirely superfuous, as ample provision is made
for the extraordinary expenses, such as war, in
vasion and insurrection, or rather they are ex-
ccpted from the general rule. which, of necessi-
ty, applies to ordinary expenses. Again, II is
said, the 9Th arttle applies to works of internal
improvements, and other works ola public char
acter. On examination it will be found that
these are exceptions to the general prohibitions;
that no debt or liability can be incurred, unless
in case of war, to repcl invasion, or suppress
instruction; except the same shall be author
lied by law for some single object or work.
So far from this section extending only to the
prohibition of some single object or work. we
would be carrying the powers Of the Legislature
to their utmost extent to hold that the present
Indebtedness can be legaized under this provs-
ion, and that bill for this single object or pur-
pose, endorsed by the people, would be consti-
tutional."
In relation to the same subject, Judge Burnett
says:
"The Legislature is allowed to contract debts
beyond the limits prescribed, in case of war, in
vasion, or insurrection; and IT, as counsel con-
tend, the limit does not include the necessary
expenses Of the government, why were these ex-
ceptions to that limit alIowedY If the general
rule include case, it is wholly illogical to make
such case an erception to that rule. The expen-
ses, In case of war, invasion and instruction.
are surely as necessary as the ordinary expenses
of the State government; and if the general lin
II would not include these ordinary expenses
of the State. why should the same general rule
include the more pressing demand in time of
war There could be no good sense in making
an idle exception, aud the exception would seem
to be idle upon the hypothesis that the counsel
is correct.
$50 far from the necessary and ordinary ex-
penses of the State forming an exception to the
restriction, they were evidently among those es-
pecially included in it, and for obvious reasons.
"The limit did not apply to the first Legisla-
ture; because, by the sixteenth section Of the
twelfth article it was so expressly provided; and
that Legislature was authorized to negotiate
for such amount as may be necessary to pay the
expenses of the State Government In other
words, that limit did not apply TO the first Leg
slature, which was expressly authorized to bor-
row money for the necessary expenses ofthe State"
A proposition was started In the Legislature,
previous to the rendering of this decision that
even If the State debt was unconstitutional, the
Legislature had the right, as the representatives
Of the people, to appropriate money to pay II.
This point is also reviewed. and II Is held that
the Legislature has no right to tax the people
to pagan unconstitutional debt. The power Of
taxation for purposes contemplated by the con-
stltution is unlimited in the Legislature, but
such power does not exist for purposes not sane
toned by that instrument. If the Legislature
had power to appropriate money to pay an I'M
constitutional debt, the restriction would be nu-
gatory, for the same end would then be accom-
plished by other NODES Judge Murray goes
further, and intimates that the Courts would in.
terfere to prohibit officers from collecting the
interest tax, and that it would also be the duty
of the Courts to grant injunctons to restrain
the Treasurer from paying the interest upon
the State bonds
There Is now no question In regard to the
State debt that is not settled. The whole civil
debt with the exception of that portion con.
tracted by the first Legislature, is void, and
there is no way by which 1t can be lcgalized
except in the manner pointed out in the decis.
ion in the wagon road case-that u.s. by submit.
ting 1t to vote of the people. We trust now
that law will be passed, without further op-
position, re-enacting the several funding acts
and that the same will be left to q vote of the
people for approval or rejection. If q majority
of the people approve the law, the debt will be
legalized and the credit of the State will then
be placed higher than 1t ever has been. If thOy
vote to repudiatc the debt, the credit of the
State will be forever ruined. We cannot be-
lieve, however, that the debt will be repudiated.
In San Francisco, and in many of the agricultu-
raj counties, II is probable that considerable op.
position will be made to its payment but we
are confident that the mining counties will roll
up heavy majorities in favor of a funding act.