Daily clarion and standard. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1866, 1866-07-03
berl6, 1866, it would follow that the jud

Il
The joint resolution of October 25, is the
only Legislative act expressly relied on in the
return of the appellant, as a ground of his re-
fusal to the issue the warrant demanded But
that resolution may be laid wholly out of
the question without affecting the result
1t may, for all the purposes OF the cause be
considered. as never having been passed at
ALL and the decision can be safely rested en-
tirely upon the act of December 4, already |
quoted. That act expressly authorizes the |
Auditor to issue warrants for all claims &C
Cruing after the sixteenth of October, 1860.
But, in the view we are now taking, there
was already law in full force providing for |
the. issuance of warrants for all claims, /
whether accruing before or after that date, |
and therefore no necessity existed for such |
an act, if only intended TO sanction the issu- |
ance OF such warrants. Something else, |
therefore was intended, and the evident pur- /
pose of the Legislature was TO prohibit the /
issuance of warrants in any case not en-
braced within it. The intent being ascer- /
tanned, il must be carried into effect, If war /
ranted by the words of the act 1t is true /
there are no negative words nor any express |
repeating clause, and thai repeats by imph- /
cation are not favored by the courts; yet |
it Is a well settled rule of Interpretation, that |
although the statute be not repugnant in all |
its provisions to prior one, Yet If the latter |
statute was clearly intended TO prescribe the |
only rule that should govern in the case pro- |
vided for, it repeats the original act. Sedg- |
wick on State and Court law, 1874, Davis VS.. |
Fairbairn, How, {. S. Rep, CSC; Dexter |
and Limerick Plank Road Company VS.. |
Allen, l6 Barbour, 10. The application of
this principle to the present case is plain, for
it is clear that the Legislature intended this |
act of December 4, 1865, to prescribe the only
rule that for the present should govern in
the issuance of warrants by the Auditor.
This act being passed, and taking effect
before the Judgment in favor of the relator,
cook away the only foundation on which
that judgment could stand. Rey vs. Good |
win, Moore and Payne, 34l Butler VS.. Pal
mer, Hill, n. Y. 324; Smith on Const. and
Stat. law, $50.
The policy of the legislation under discus
sion is a matter with which this Court has
but little concern, yet it may not be alto
getheT impairment to allude briefly to the
circumstances under which it was adopted.
The Legislature met after the close of four
years of exhausting and disastrous war
During its progress the people had cheerfully
submitted TO the greatest sacrifices, and had
contributed in taxes and voluntary offerings
enormous sums IN money and property for
the support of the cause. Production had
been to great degree suspended. The cOun
try had been ravaged in every direction
towns had been sacked and burned, dwellings
pillaged and destroyed, stock killed or driven
away, farming implements broken up, fences
torn down and consumed and the whole
ldnu as lar as possible reduced TO uesOldIlOH
and ruin. At the close of the contest, the
labor system upon which all our prosperity
had been reared, was abolished. Probably
one thousand millions of dollars would not
much exceed the loss of property, OF all
kinds, sustained by the people of Mississippi
alone. During the conflict, the State had
strained its resources to the utmost Large
sums had been collected in funds which,
though deprecated, We're yet the common
currency of the whole people, and ample pro-
vision was thus made for the liquidation of
all demands against it. When the contest
closed, a large amount of this currency was
in the Treasury, and the proper officers all
over the State were actively engaged in the
collection of another heavy tax. By the I'M
favorable issue of the war, all these funds
became instantly worthless. The State Gov
eminent being subverted, no new revenue
system could be provided, and when the
| Legislature assembled on the 10th day of
| October, 1865, there was not one dollar in the
Treasury. A small sum of money, sufficient
| only to defray the expenses of the Govern
| ment for few weeks, was paid into the
| Treasury by the Provisional Governor. 1t
| was impossible promptly to provide an ade-
| quate revenue, and the widespread destitu-
| ton and distress that prevailed among the
| people, peremptorily forbade the imposition
! of heavy takes.
| Under these circumstances, amid the doubt
| and uncertainty that rested upon the future,
1
| should have determined to postpone the
| liquidation of the pre-existing debts of the
| State to a more propitious period, and for the
| present to attempt no more than the collec-
| ton of a sufficient amount of revenue to de
| fray the necessary current expenses of the
| Government. In doing so, it seems difficult
| to deny that the Legislature exercised its
| legitimate powers in a wise and beneficial
| manner.
As regards the right of civil officers exer-
clslng their functions in those portions of the
| State not in the permanent occupation of the
| army of the United States, to receive their
| salaries for the time anterior to such Oceupa-
| ton, we can entertain no doubt The State
| of Mississippi is to-day the same State that
| occupied its limits before the 9th day of
| January, 1861, and since that date. Its con-
| stltutIon and Its laws are the same except so
| far they have been altered, from time to
time, by its own act. Rights of property are
| to be governed, contracts are to be construed,
and crimes to be tried and punished, by
the same laws that existed before the date of
the act OF SECESSION, or that have been en-
acted by the Legislature since. 1t is not A
new State, or a new Government, but the
same State and the same Government The
military commanders have not assumed to
alter our laws, nor abolish them, but have
only changed the administration of them by
substituting new functionares, chosen by
| ourselves, under forms prescribed by them
During the period of transition while the
| state was neld under the military rule, our
general system of laws, civil and criminal,
was not attempted to be abolished or sus-
pended, except so far as those laws cont1icted
with the exercise of the military power, or
| with the regulations ordained expressly or
implied by, by its authority, or with the con-
stitution, laws, or policy of the United
States, but only their execution was sus-
pended for wantsof the proper magistracy to
enforce them. The State is not relieved of
its debts by the revolution through which it
has passed, and the salaries due to its officers
for the period during the war, while they
were in the discharge of their functions
stand upon no less favorable footing than
other debts before the war commenced, OF
lawfully contracted since. But it is for the
Legislature to make such provisions for the
discharge of these. and all other obligations
that rest upon it, as they may deem wise
and proper.
In view of the whole case, the Judgment
of the Court below viii be reversed and the
petition of the relator dismissed, at his costs
in both Courts