Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-05-13
WEEKLY SENTINEL.
WEDNESDAY,. MAY I3.
The Governor ON the state Debt.

The Governor ON the States Debt.
His Excellency, o.. p. MORTON, Governor. &C.,
in his letter to JAMES WINsLow, Esq, in a very
elaborate and learned disquisition upon the term
appropriation, ;" thus elucidates the meaning or
definition thereof. We quote as follows from his
pamphlet edition of THAT document. which we sup
pose is authentic. He says:
at is, as in all other cases, a question as to
the intention of the Legislature, which is to be
arrived at by the ordinary rules of construction.
If il is the intention that money should be taken
from the Treasury for a particular purpose, then
such intention is the law. and IS an appropria-
ton"
Mark the language of His Excellency. An
appropriation. he says. is the intention of the
Legislature that money shall be taken from the
Treasury for a particular purpose. The .Legis-
lature intends that a great deal of money shall
be taken for particular purposes Now for the
application of the Governors doctrine.
The Legislature of 1861 appointed a committed
to audit the claims against the State for military
purposes. The claims allowed by that committee
were to be regarded as valid, as just, and as cbli-
cations against the State upon that authentica-
ton, and claims were allowed and paid by the
State officers, until the Military Fund was ex-
hausted. The Legislature of 1863 appointed a
simiIar committee. 1t audits all claims against
the State for such purposes. and approves those
that are Just. The Indebtedness of the State is
thus fixed and determined, just as positively as
the amount due by the State for the interest upon
the public debt. One is just as certain as the
other.
Let US look for n moment at the
character of this Indebtedness for war
purposes. Is it not as sacred, in fact is it
not more so. than any obligation due to foreign
creditors? A large amount, if not the greater
amount OF the State debt. is held by the subjects
of Great Britain. Has not the English Govern
ment manifested more sympathy for the Southern
Confederacy than it has for the old Government?
The military claims against the State are held by
our own citizens. They have advanced the
means at a time when the integrity of the Gov
eminent was assailed. to aid in crushing out the
rebellion. We ask, under such circumstances,
whether the plighted faith of the State and the
Government is not equally sacred to this class of
creditors as it is to the bondholders of the old
State debt? The Governor is of the
opinion that if there is any money in
the Treasury, the interest upon the State
debt should be paid. And why? He answers;
eff it is the intention that money
should be taken from the Treasury for a particu-
lar purpose, then such intention is the law. and
is an appropriation" 1t was the intention of the
Legislature that money should be taken from the
Treasury to pay the advances made by her citi-
zens for military purposes to put down this wick
ed re~belliOn-hence such an intention is an ap-
preparation, according to Gov. MORON. Such
is the logical result of the Governors PROPOSE
tons and they cannot be avoided. If the Gov
errors argument is to be accepted as the rule by
which the State officers are to be governed in the
discharge of their duties, they have only to salts
fy themselves that the Legislature intended that
money should be taken from the Treasury for a
particular purpose to justify them in paying
all claims which will come within that rule,
whether the Legislature made any gen
eral or specific appropriation to pay
the claim or whether they neglected to do so. The
Governor contends that the State officers have
this authority. in defiance of the Constitutional
provision that "no money shall be drawn from
the Treasury, but in pursuance of appropriations
made BY law" 1t seems to US that the common
est and dullest comprehension cannot but com
prehend the fallacy of the Governors argument
Let Us look outside of Indiana for a solution or
definition of the term appropriation" The
public Indebtedness of the United States, all
must acknowledge, is as sacred m obligation as
that If Indiana n r any other State. The nublic
faith of the Federal Government is pledged for not
only the paw ment of the interest but for the liquida-
ton of the debt. And there is no doubt but that
it was the intention of the Congress that created
the debt, and also the obligation or duty of every
subsequent Congress to provide that money be
taken from the Treasury to pay the interest upon
those obligations. Blu; no Congress which ever
assembled ever Sc; up the doctrine that such in
tention is an appropriation. The payment of the
Interest on the public debt of the United States
has been provided for in the appropriation bills
passed by every Congress. 1t could not be paid
without such specific appropriation. The intend
ment of Congress that money should be taken from
the Treasury for that purpose. is not regarded by
that Oody as an appropriation, hence every sue
ceeding Congress has appropriated the money
necessary to nav the interest upon the public debt
of the United States.
We make those Illustrations to show the utter
f~allacy OF the Governors position, and that it has
no authority in law. Ii cannot be justified by
precedents within or the construction of similar
laws outside of the State.