Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-01-11
Ehe state and FeaeraIGeurfs-Ae ues-
hon of Iuri ID cIinn.

tion of Jurisd tction.
At the last term Of the United States District
Court held IN this city decree was entered con
fiscating one hundred and nine one thousand
dollar per cent. Indiana bonds, held by one
SAMUEL M,LLER. who resides near Lynchburg,
Virginia, upon the charge that he recognized and
aided the Confederate government. The decree
directed the sale of the bonds on the 4th inst. at
a not less price than seventy five cents on the
dollar. the object of which was to prevent collu-
sion and fraud; and likewise that the, Auditor of
State should issue certificates Of these bonds for
transfer on the books of the. Agency. in New
York and draw a warrant upon the Treasurer of
State for the interest due upon said bonds up to
the LIST of January proximo. The bonds were
sold at price averaging about eighty three
cents, the decree having been modified so as to
allow the purchasers to deposit the purchase
money subject to the contingency Of the transfer
of the bonds in due form, otherwise the sale was
to be considered invalid. tsl 1aF f.lw
! Upon the demand being made for the warrant
for the payment of the interest by the agent APP
pointed by the Court. Hon JossrH RIsrIsE, the
ground that as an officer of the State OF In
diana he was forbidden "to draw any warrant
upon the Treasurer of State, unless there be
money in the treasury belonging to the par
ticuIar fund upon which the same is drawn to
pay the same, and in conformity to appropria-
tons made 5y law The Supreme Court of
Indiana, the highest judicial tribunal known to
an officer Of the State in the discharge OF his
public trust as such, have decided that the
Auditor has no right to draw warront to pay
the interest upon the State debt, nor the
Treasurer to paw such warrant without Il spe
cifc legislative appropriation directing them to
make such disposition of the public funds an
der their control This is the law in the case.
so far as they are concerned, and it is in ex-
act conformity with the intent. spirit and let.
ter of the laws of 1859 and 1861 regulating
the public treasury aud defining the duties of
the Auditor and Treasurer in their relations
/ thereto.
No taxes have been levied to pay the interest
upon the public debt, hence there is no ''particu-
lar fund" 10 the Treasury upon which a warrant
can be drawn to pay- the same. Aud the laws
provide most stringently that they shall not dis
burse any money from the general fund unless in
CONFORMITY TO appropriations made by. law. y
And the Supreme Court decided that no such ap-
propriations have been made since those appro
priated bv the Legislature of 1861 and they have
been exhausted.
What rightha the District Court of the United
! - ,,.,uav o,f of he puhIia
treasury of Indiana, for such is the effect of its
decree in the case upon which are comment
ing or what right to direct an officer of Indiana
who as such can know no law higher than that OF
bis own State as to the manner he shall discharge
his official trustl The common sense of every
man will promptly respond none whatever. II
had no more right 10 do so than to direct any
other citizen to draw bis warrant upon
the treasury for that purpose The civil
officers of Indiana. in carrying out
the local laws of the State. are in no
wise amenable to Federal authority the Fed
eral courts Officially they are rot presumed
to know tho existence of either. If the District
Court had entered decree that the interest due
upon the bonds held by SAMUEL MILLER was the
property of the United States and that when
paid it should be paid to the latter, different
issue would be presented, quite another face put
upon the case. The decree of Judge SMITH APP
pears u us presumption of power. which, il
sustained. will make the State government, its
laws and administration, mere appendage to the
Federal government and much subject to its
direction in all purely domestic affairs as is the
horse TO the bit of the driver.
We think that Mr. RIsrISE. a faithful State
officer, could not do otherwise than to refuse TO
obey the decree of the United Suites Distsiat
Court in regard to the payment of the interest on
the bonds confiscateds We have NO: heard
whether there will be further procee iings in this
case although believe he is subject TO arrrign-
ment for contempt in refusing to obey the decree
! ofthe Court