Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-06-08
rhe STATE Debt n,ere.. question:.


Cosrt. upon the question presented to the Court
to issue a warrant upon the Treasr-y for the pay
ment of the semi-annuai interest upon the State
debt due on the lst Of july next, or the Treas
urer of State to pay said interest out Of the fund.
in the Treasury without a warrant from the Au
ditor. The Court are unanimous in the opinion
that there is no law authorizing the payment OF
the interest or which would justify them in so do
ing. As this is a matter 10 which the good faith
aud credit of Indiana is involved. we trust the
opinions of the Court. which we regard incoHtro-
vertible. viii be carefully read and considered by
every citizen of the State
In 1916 (lhe State having failed to pay the in
terest upon the public debt for some years. a
compromise was made with her creditors, they
releasing one half OF the Indebtedness for new
obligations and for the other the Wabash and
Erie Canal and the lands unsold which had been
appropriated by the General Government for its
construction-the State ~pledging its faith for the
p%unctual payment of the interest on the new
bonds. In 1859. the Legislature, in view of the
loose manner in which the financial affairs OF the
State had been conducted, enacted a strin-
gent law prohibiting the Auditor aud Treas
urer of State from withdrawing any money
from the Treasury unless in pursuance of appro-
priations made by law. The General Assembly
of that year placed its construction upon that act
by providing for the paymento OF the interest upon
the State debt for the succeeding two years, in
the general appropriation bill. In 1861 the Leg
~islature passed what is known AS the embezzIe-
ment law. providing heavy penalties for any vio-
latien of the law establishing a Treasury system,
which bad been enacted two years previous
The General Assembly of lo6l also provided for
the payment of the interest upon the public debt
for the two succeeding years in the general ap-
preparation bill.
There was a majority of Democratic members
in both branches of the Legislature of 1863. which
assembled in January last. They were c%onstitu
tionaliy elected. and represented the sentiments
of a majority of the people of Indiana. Several
bills upon measures of public policy were ma
tured by the majority of the Legislature, and
were presented for its consideration. Some of
these were Objectionable to the minority. The
Constitution requires that no law can be enacted
unless a quorum Of each House shall be present,
and it is made to consist of two thirds of the
members Of each branch of the Legislature. The
Constitution restricts the sessions to sixty-one
days, and all laws must be enacted within fifty
nine days Thirteen days previous 10 the expira-
ton of the Constitutional term of the Legislature
and before the appropriation bills necessary
to sustain the State Government and provide for
the payment of the obligations of her creditors,
a sufficient number of the Republican members
of the lower House to break a quorum, bcited,
left the city, and thus blocked the wheels of leg
~islation and prevented the adoption of necessary
laws to meet the Indebtedness of the State to her
creditors. A minority of the Republican mem
bers seeded with the full knowledge that their
act would stop legislation. A Republican mem
Der pronounced this proceeding as mean treason,
as ~violative of the constitution, as the with
drawal of South Carolina from the Union. The
seeding Republican minority of the Legislature
went to Madison, on the Ohio river, so as to be
able to get out of the jurisdiction of the State
in case any measures should be adopted to CON-
pei them 10 return to the discharge of their con-
stitutional obligations, and they remained away
until after the time had elapsed for the ~constitu-
tional enactment of laws.
The apology of the secessionists for boiling,
was their fear that a military law would be
adopted, which they declared to be Objectionable
on ~partizan grounds not only, but unconstitu-.
tional. But in this regard they are without ex
cuse. If they had remained in their seats they
could have defeated this bill by constitutional
legislative expedients. and they were also adj
vised that it could not pass the Senate. And if
the proposed bill was unconstitutional as alleged,
the courts could have so decided. and thus made
it a nullity. Such being the case, it must be
conceded that their action was revolution
airy, and without Justification. When they
bolted it was with the full knowledge that their
act would defeat the passage of the appropriation
bills, and thus ieopardize and involve the cridit
and faith of the State. They left with these
facts staring them in the face
The seeding minority bolted with the knowl-
edge. advice and approval of Governor MORTON.
he counselled them to, and ~justiies them in this
violation of their oaths of office He is more
kultN thin tbCN " uCl 0Ouiu uOt HdNt IdkCn
this revolutionary step without his agreement to
stand by and uphold them.
The time is near at hand for the Treasurer of
State TO place funds in the city of New York to
to meet the accruing July interest upon the State
debt. The Governor, too, under such circum-
stances, asked the Auditor and Treasurer of State
to assume the responsibility of Withdrawing money
from the treasury for that purpose, and argued
that the laws compromising the State debt were
in effect a continuous appropriation which au
thoriZed them TO do so. They could not place
such a construction upon those acts. To test
this question, the President of the Sinking Fund
applied for a mandate directing the Auditor to
draw his warrant upon the treasury to pay the in
terest. Judge FINCH, of this circuit, first al
Iowed the mandate. From this decision an APP
peal was taken to the Supreme Court. The
Judge then changed his decision and refused to
allow u mandate, and from this decision an ap
peal was taken to the court of last resort.
The object of these suits was to decide the
Law in the case. The case was ably argued be-
fore the Supreme Court by Hon. JOSEPH <. Nc
DONALD and Messrs. RAND & HALL in favor of
the mandate being issued, and by the Attorney
General. OSCAR Il. HoRD and Hon. THOMAS A.
HENDRICKS against its issue. The Supreme
Court, after a full investigation Of the questions
at issue, have decided that the State officers have
no authorit, to pay the interest unless in pursuance
of specific legislative appropriations. The Court in
our opinion makes the Case so clear that there
cannot be a reasonable doubt of the correctness
of their decision. The Journal charges corrup-
ton uTon the Court and that it has been infu-
enced by partisan sympathies. When the Gov
ernor and his political friends can controvert the
opinions of the Court, it will then be time to make
such infamous aud malicious charges.
The decision of the Court was made early, so as
to give the Governor the opportunity to apply the
remedy at his control. The Constitution author.
- Ii - .ra,.kl tho Ia-eoIafn~a -. -.