The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-12-29

We think that Governor Scott is clearly
in the right in refusing to sign State bonds
to be issued in exchange for bills of the
Bank of the State. 1t is true that the pres
ent General Assembly passed an act author
izing bills of the Bank of the State, issued
previous to December 20, 1860, to be funded
at par in State bonds bearing six per cent.
interest; but proper regar for the credit
of the State requires that its highest e1-
ecutive officer should use all his power and
influence to prevent the Legislature from
assuming any liability on behalf of the
State for which the State is not plainly lia-
BILE, especially when the liability proposed
to be undertaken is not proved to be un-
doubtedly constitutional.
There is no disposition on our part to de-
eide whether the State is or is not liable for
the bills issued by the Bank Of the State.
The 5illholders took proceedings in the
State courts to compel the State to receive
these bills in payment of taxes, but the
Court of Appeals decided against them.
They then appealed to. the Supreme Court Of
the United States, by which tribunal the
whole question will be finally determined.
Until the decision of the Supreme Court
is given against her, the State is not liable
for the bills of the Bank of the State; and
while we will make every sacrifice to fulfil
any just obligation, we are not willing to
pay one single dollar for which we are not
legally responsible.
But there are other difficulties connected
with funding the bills of the Bank of the
State which may have been the immediate
cause of Governor Scott's decision no. to
issue the bonds already mentioned.
The Constitutional Convention which met
in this city in January last, passed on ordi-
nance in which it is declared that it shall
be the duty Of the General Assembly, at its
first session, to appoint commissioners "to
"investigate and ascertain what obligations
sof the State are entitled to be held as valid
sand binding upon the State, in conformity
"with the provisions Of this constitution
sand the ordinances adopted by this Con-
"yention," and "until the General Assem-
"bly shah have. asccrtained the validity of
sssuch obligations, no payment for either
eprincipal or interest shall be made Oh
sany outstanding obligation created and
s'incurred prior to the 29th day of April,
1885," The commissioners provided for
in this ordinance have not made their re-
port. They have not, as far as we know,
been elected. Whence, then, did the Gea-
eral Assembly derive its power to fund the
bills Of the Bank of the State in bonds of
the State
Besides this, it is well known that under
the Constitution of the State art. TX, Sec.
10y, no scrip, certificate or other evidence
of State Indebtedness, shall be issued "ex-
"cept for the redemption Of stock, bonds
cor other evidences of indebtedness previ-
"ously issued, or for such debts as are ex-
sspressly authorized in this constitution"
while the Constitution of the United States
declares that "neither the United States nor
"any State shall assume to pay any deb: or
"obligation incurred in aid of insurrection
cor rebellion"
How is it to be determined which of the
bills of the Bank of the State were issued
before the war, and which were issued du-
ring the war? The date of the bills is no
proof of the time when they were issued.
Alarge amount ofthese bills were, we believe,
lent to the Confederate or to the State Gov
ernment. Can the State give its bonds for
these bills, and how is it to be decided
whether the bills presented to the Treasu-
rer were or were not issued = aid of
"insurrection or rebellion ?"
We do not attempt to explain away these
difficulties, nor do we desire to Interfere
with the arrangements of speculators who
bought these bills of the Bank Of the State
at five and ten cents on the dollar, and
then cajoled the Legislature into passing
bill to fund them in State bonds, which are
worth sixty or seventy. We have no ami
mostly against these men, but we feel that
they can afford to wait until the courts give
Judgment in their favor; and we know that
South Carolina cannot afford, and dare not
pretend to assume, any debt for which she
is not indubitably liable under the law and
the constitution.