Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-01-06

f j
WEDNESDAY MORNING. JANUARY
The state s~s Feaerai csurts-A Qaes.
ton sf gnrssdtes,sn.
Az the lee, TEN OF the United states Dis,rict
Court held In thl. city decree ~ss entered con.
h.estng one hundred snd nine one thousand
dollar yer cent Indiana bonds. held b. one
sssrrl M'ltka. wbo resides near Lyachbutg.
vifginia. upon the charge ,h.s he recoguissd AID
aided the Confederate government The decree
directed the sale Of ,be bonds on the i,h lust. 1t
. not les pfiee thsn seventy Ave cents on the
dollar. the object Of which was % prevent eollu.
sion and fraud, snd likewise that the Auditor OF
State should Issue csrsihcsss- 81 these bonds for
transfer on The books OF the Agency IN New
York aud draw warrant upon the Treasurer Of
State ior the interest due upon sald bonds up 10
The IL IL January pforlmo. The bonds were
sold a. price averaging shout eighty three
cents. ,hc decree hasing been modified a. ~ 10
sllow the purchasers 60 deposlt the purchase
none, subject TO the contingency u lhs transfer
10 he eoasideresl invalid.
Upon the demand being made Tor the warrant
for the payment OF the interest by the agent ap-
pointed by the Court. Hon Jostrn RlsrINE. tho
Auditor of State. declined 10 do upon tho
ground that a. an oheer Of the State Of In.
diana he va. Forbidden Ito draw auy warrant
upon the Treasurer OF State. unless there be
monsy in the treasury belonging 10 the par.
tcular fund upon which the same il drawn 10
pay the same. and In conformity TO appropri.-
sion- made by Law F" The Supreme Court Of
indiana. the highest judicial tribunal known to
officer Of the State Ia the discharge of his
public trust m such. have decided that the
Auditor has no right to draw n warrant 10 pay
tie interest upon the State debt nor the
Treasurer TO pay such warrant without spe
chc legislative appropriation directing them "a
make such disposition Of the public funds an
der their conuol THIS IA the law IN the case.
30 fsT thew are coheerned. and il Is in ex-
act conformity with the intent. spirit and let
ter OF the laws OF 1859 AM 1861 regulating
the public treasury aud defining the duties Of
the Auditor aud Treasurer in their relations
thereof
upon the public debt hence there il no ''particu-
lar fund" IN the Treasury UPON which warrant
can be drawn 10 pay the same. Aud the Laws
provide most -trinsenty shat they shall not dis
burse any money from the general fund unless in
conformity to appropriations made BY Law -
And the Supreme Court decided thu, no such APP
preparations have been made since those appro
priated by the Legislature OF 1851 and they have
been exhausted.
What right has the District Court OF the United
States TO appropriate money out Of the public
Treasury OF Indisna. for such is the effect of it,
decree IN the case upon which We are comment
ing. ~ what right to direct officer of Indiana
who ~ such eau know no law higher than that OF
his own State az TO the manner he shall discharge
his official trust? The common sense of every
nan will promptly respond none whatever. |,
had no more right TO do 30 than to direct any
the treasury for ,ha, purpose The civil
officers OF Indiana. in carrying Out
the local laws of the State. are in no
wise amensble 10 Federal authority or the Fed
eral courts Officially they are rot presumed
to know the existence of either. Ii the District
Court had entered decree that the interest due
upon the bonds held by SAMUEL MILLER the
property Of the United States and that When
paid is should be paid the latter. differen,
issue would be presented. quite another face put
upon the The decree of Judge sxIrH ap-
Iears 70 Us presumption Of power, which, il
sustained. will make the State government. its
laws and Administrations mere sppendage to the
Federal government and much subject TO its
direction in all purely domestic affairs as is the
horse tn the bit of the driver
We think th-t Mr.. RIsrISK. Taithiu State
officer, could not do otherwise than to refuse 10
obey the decree of the United States Dis;riei
CouFtin resasd to the payment of the interest o.
the bonds confscatei We have nos. hear,
whether there will be further procee iH9s in thi-
case. although we believe he is subject to arrrign
m-nt f,T contempt refusing 60 o;'ey the decree
of the Court