Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-05-13
of the Interest on the state
Debt-teply OF the Attorney General
TO Governor Morton's letter 10 James
Winsl0w, ESQ.


indianapolis. Ind, May 3, 1854
JOSEPH j. BINGHAM, ESQ:
SIR: On the Sd ult.. the Auditor of State re.
quested my official opinion as to whether there
existed the necessary legislation to authorize
him to draw his warrant upon the
State Treasury, for the amount required to pay
the July interest upon the funded debt Of the
State. On the 9th ult. | answered the inquiry,
expressing the opinion that no such authority ex-
listed, and. gave my reasons for the conclusion
arrived at. The note of the Auditor and my an.
swer we're published in the Sentinel of the 9Th
ult.
In the Journal of the 4th inst, was published
a letter from his Excellency, Oliver 2. Morton.
dated the 23d ult, addressed to james Winslow.
Esq of the City of New York, upon the same
subject, which has been published, with som
PREDATORY remarks, in pamphlet form, and is being
distributed AS a political document.
His Excellency has seen fit to indulge in some
reflections of a character that caDnotbe regarded
as complimentary to the Democratic party, gen
orally. and myself particularly, which furnish my
excuse for troubling you with this communica-
ton.
The foundation of His Excellency's argument
is that the Acts of 1876 and lS47 constitute an
| dppIOpThdtiOD, ~ di COiliuS ltuc, VI Tie money
necessary to pay the interest upon the funded
debt; not because they appropriate money for that
purpose, or because they profess to appropriate
money, or because they are appropriation bills,
according to the definition of His Excellency;
but because the acceptance of the propositions
made by the State to her creditors. and the form
of the bonds issued, constitute a contract on the
part of the State to pay the interest at a certain
time and place; that the honor and good faith Of
A. =. ~. L. -l--r1 -
complied with; therefore, these acts constitute an
apprOpri alton, and no further legislation is ne
cessary.
He sums up the argument thus:
'Is it possible that further legislation is roquir-
ed to authorize the State to pay the interest on
this obligation? The State makes her written
promise to pay, at particular times. and delivers
it to her creditors, which, upon presentation to the
proper officer, is a direct and sufficient authority
for payment. If it is not, then the promise of
the State carries with it no obligation, and the
authority to pay must be derived solely from sub
sequent Legislation +"
The question presented is this: Does a contract
on the part of the State to pay money, amount
to an appropriation and furnish authority justify
ing the State officers to take money from the
State Treasury to pay the Indebtedness An
agreement on the part of the State to pay money
is one thing. and a legislative direction to the
State officers to take money from the Treasury
to pay the Indebtedness is another. A few illus
trntions will show Inc difference.
The United States ,bv contractwith the officers and
soldiers composing the army, agrees to paw them
STIMULATED price per month for their services. This
contract is the contract of the Government and
is made by virtue of authority conferred by Acts
of Congress.
The honor of the Government is pledged to "A
faithful compliance with the contract, and It's
breach would be a lasting stain upon the nation
al character; but | have always understood. not
withStanding this. that not a cent could be paid
the army without an appropriation bill
If His Excellency is correct ia his assumption
that Il contract to pay money Is an appropriation
of tie money necessary To pay it, then the Fed
eral authorities have no power to enlist Il soldier
for a longer period than two years; for it is ex-
pressly provided in the Constitution, rs 4 limita-
ton upon the right to raise and support armies,
that no appropriation to that use, shall be
for a longer term than two years"
The Government has. however, always acted
upon Il different principlr-has understood that a
contract to pay. was not an approDriation-an6
therefore enlists soldiers for a longer period than
two years
The Federal Government has the power to
make treaties, and may contract in them to pay
money. fixing the time and place of payment; and
; NAV solemniy pledge the faith of the nation for a
compliance with the obligations; vet it has always
been regarded necessary that Congress should
appropriate the money necessary to satisfy the
obligation thus assumed.
Some light is she'd upon this subject by a
| discussion in Congress on the 18th day OF January,
E 1896, with reference to appropriations to sustain
5 the mint, and the debate took quite II wide
Y range
Mr.. Theodore Sedgwick, of Massachusetts,. as
sumed the portion that when the Government
had assumed obligations, or made legal establish
ments, it was the duty of Congress TO make the
necessary appropriations to provide for them, and
that Congress had not the right to refuse the ap-
preparations, or discu : their p~ropriety.
Mr.. Sedgwick did not however, take the high
ground occupied by His Excpllency, that an obi
D cation on tine part of the Government, was it
: self an appropriation that rendered further action
/ by Congress unnecessary.
{ Mr.. Albert Gallatin differed from Mr.. Sedgwick
Y and expressed his alarm mt the position assumed.
: He thought that notwithstanding the obligation
to paw existed. still the appropriation To meet it
was for Congress, and that the subject of appro-
r p%riation WAS a Solemn aud important one, placed
t in the hands of the Legislature as a check upon
the other branches of the Government; that Con-
gress in each case had the right, and it WAS their
e duty, to determine the necessity and ~propriety of
making an appropriation.
He referred. nv way of illustration, TO the fact
that the military establishment was made up by
e enlistments for three or more years, while it was
usual to make annual appropriations for its sup
{ port; and Congress was expressly prohibited. by
/. the Constitution, from voting appropriations for
n more than two years for the support of an armed
e force.
At the time of this debate. the Government was
s largely in debt, had outstanding bonds and prom
ises to paw the interest thereon. According TO
HIS Excellency' : theory. these obligations consti-
ted an appropriation of The money necessary to
meet the interest. without further legislation.
Mr.. Gallatim in speaking of the right of the
legislative branch of the Government TO control
appropriations, SAID: There was one instance in
which this House had thought it proper to aban-
don the right In order to strengthen the public
credit, they had consented that the payment of
interest on the debt should not depend on their
sole will; aud they had rendered the appropriation
for that object, not yearly. but "a permanent one. "
Mr.. Gallatin did not think a mere promise to
pay interest, rendered Il subsequent legislative
:, appropriation unnecessary, but says that Congress
has madea permanent appropriation for that pur-
d pose.
e / make the following extract from the act OF
Congress referred to by him, passed August
e d, l790-found in / U. S. Statutes at Large, 1879;
section / be it enacted, THAT reserving out
n of the moneys which have arisen since the last
IS dav of December last past. and which shall hereaf
ter al Use from the duties on goods, wares and mer-
Il chandise imported into the United States, and on
C the tunnage of ships or vessels. the yearly sum OF
six hundred thousand dollars, or so much thereof
d as may be appropriated from time time. towards
e the defense Of the Government of the United
It States, and their ommOn defense. the residue OF
the said moneys, or so much thereof as may be
necessary, as the same shall be received in each
n year, next after the sum reserved as aforesaid
shall be, aud is hereby appropriated to the nav.