Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1863-02-27
MINORITY REPORT.

The undersigned not cOncurring in some Of the
facts stated, in the conclusions arrived at by
majority of the committee presented in their
port submits the following minority report:
The time allowed him to make this report is too
short to permit him recite fully the provisions Of
the several ordinances Of the Convention for issuing
treasury notes, &c. But this can hardly DC neceS-
sary the provisions fully set forth in the
opinions of legal gentlemen filed with and made
part Of the majority report AS To the sale Of bonds
To pay the Confederate tax in the City of Richmoad
by Lancaster Son, the undersigned does not I'M
drrStand that any complaint is made from any
quarter; does he believe that any other ar
rangement could have been made by Mr.. Courts to
raise the amount necessary to pay the tax.
lie will barely add that the provisions of the or
dinSnce for that purpose, which gave the Treasurer
power to use the Treasury Notes ''in such manner
may be necessary to the payment of said Con-
federste tax" fully authorized him to make the ar
rangement which he did make with Lancaster &
Son, and which is fully set forth and explained IN
his response to the resolution of this House.
By the three other ordinances referred 10 in the
report of the majority, the Public Treasurer was
authorized to issue an amount of Treasury Notes
and Bonds, not exceeding in the aggregate six and
one-half million Of dollars. In exhibit filed with
the said report is set forth list of bonds issued
from some time in March, 1862 up to the goth Dec
ember last, which, by addition, appears tn be $4,-
l2y, 800 And this statement the undersigned
whole amount of eight per Bonds issued during that
time by Mr.. Courts. This statement also shows at
what rate or premium such Bonds was selling in the
Richmond market in the several months of their
ISSUE and calculation, BY which it appears that
had MIR. Courts sold the Bonds in that market rs
issued the of 1922, 2O7 would have been realiz-
ed to the State by way Of premiums on such sales
And then the statement assumes that amount to
have been lost by the State for the that the
Bonds were sold in the City of Richmond at par
Ala examination of the testimony, filed with the
report will show that this statement is very far from
correct
Let it be remembered that the ordinance regulat-
ing the whole of the issues, was that CT the Goth
February 1862, entitled ian ordinance to provide
for funding the treasury notes of this State and for
other purposes :" and by winch any holder of treat
sury notes had right, at any time, to fund them
and to demand Bonds for the of the Treasurer.
That large amount was so funded appears from
the evidence, and in fact it is made charge in the
report against Mr.. Lewis, the paymaster of our
troops, that he exchanged large amount Of these
fundabe notes for Confederate notes. thereby enabl
ing the holders to fund them in eight per cent
Bonds; and the undersigned is moreover informed
and believes that large amounts in the hands Of per-
sOnS otherwise obtained, were in like manner funded
The undersigned, therefore, was greatly surprised
at this statement after he came to examine the teSti
mony, and when he saw that no deduction was made
on account Of bonds issued for Treasury Notes. and
as to which the Treasurer had sort of discretion,
! but was bound by the Ordinance 10 fund them come
| from what quarter they might What amount of
! Bonds was thus funded the undersigned has not at
this time the means of stating He was alike sur
prlSed to find that the Report, after consuming the
late Treasurer for not selling these Bonds in the
markets and thereby mourning what is called
heavy loss the State (but should have been termed
an available profit on the Bonds fully comedies the
fact that in the opinion of the sgners sustained as
it is by the opinions of gentlemen learned in the
law he had no power under the Ordinances to make
| such sales How then can it be insisted with any
justice and propriety, that public officer is
able for not doing what the law did not authorize
him to do or that the State had sustained heavy
loss by such derection of duty? Had it been
insisted only, it is in one part of the Report that
the Treasurer was only authorized to issue Bonds
fox Treasury Notes. and that the issuing Of them for
other currency putting the State to the payment
of some interest, which she would not perhaps,
have So soon incurred owing to the fact that these
Treasury Notes would have entered into general
circulation the undersigned could well have appre-
ciated such position and is ready to admit that at
first blush it is not without plausibility. Certainly
the offence Of the Treasurer if any, has greater
extent than this and the loss if any, to the State,
was that loss of interest and no more.
But let us examine this matter, however, and see
whether there was any reason for the course pur-
sued The report assumes that these Treasury notes
were iuainly intended for . circulating medium,
and thai they were made fundable in order to
give Them greater credit and thereby greater
circulation In the opinion OF the undersigned,
this h total mistake to the intention and
meaning of the Ordinance. The title of the Or
dnance, as in every law, is the key to unlock its
meaning. This Ordinance is entitled, IAN Ordi-
nance to fund tbe Treasury Notes of the State AND
for other purposes" These other purposes, on ex-
animation of the Ordinance will fully show, do not
conflict with the main and real purpose, as express
han, ofok I'D ~,
the majority report the Sc notes would not have been
made fundabe at all or il at ALL at some distant day.
This is further eviden ced from the fact that the
small notes directed to be issued and used as cur