The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1868-08-22

iof Justice? A $125, 900, 900 of in
debtsdness is thus assumed by the
State, and "honor" and 'tgood faith"
are NOT preserved.
BY section 8 of the bill, notes of
the bank issued since secession, if
filed, are, it seems, repudiated alto
gether, but, if ''not fled" are made
good in discount, or set off to all
claims of the bank. Here, the dis
tinction as to bills filed and not filed
is reversed. While the bills of the
new issue, if filed, are rendered
worthless, those not filed are placed
on o par with the ante 6eHun, issue
not filed; or. in other words, with
old issue bills, not held by any of
the "ring."
Such legislation is monstrous, and
would bring into discredit any white
mans Government in the world. It
remains to be seen whether such
action on the part of Legislature,
two-thirds negro, will be less disas-
trous in its results.
But, if inequality and injustice are
manifested towards the bill-holders,
as among themselves, how much
more is this the case as to the bond
holders, as compared to the bill
holders?
The bill-holders. (many of them
known to be spectators, buying up
said bills at eight cents on the dollar
with the single exception referred to,
are cared for and provision made in
their behalf. But the Barings, who,
thirty years ago, bought the bonds
of the State, bearing 5 per cent
interest, paying in sterling exchange
ninety-three cents to the dollar, and
the American Fire Loan Stockhold-
ers, who paid for their stock in gold,
ut par, are utterly ignored, in this
financial masterpiece. These claim
ants of the funds in question, are
not even mentioned, or alluded to,
in the bill which undertakes to dis
pose of their claims. Yet sterling
coupon bonds, represented by the
Barings, to the amount of G1O9, 900,
are past due, and the coupons have
run out; and, upon $318,O00 of fire
loan stock, held in America, interest
has accumulated for some years.
This is preserving faith with ven
geance!
The two remaining provisions of
the bill are of piece with those
already mentioned. Section 4 repeals
the Act of 1865. If the Act is with
out validity, why repeal It? The
bill-holders assert that it is already
"null and void" This bill would
seem to admit its validity, and,
therefore, proposes its repeal" Now,
if the Act of 1865 is valid, the "re-
peal," we insist. will be tnull and
void" If the Act has any force at
all, it operates as statutory assign
ment of certain assets, which assign
ment has been accepted by the par
ties for whose benefit it was made,
and constitutes q Contract" To
repeal this Act directly, 'impairs the
obligation of this contract" and can
not stand before the courts.
The fifth section repeals the six
teenth section of the charter of 1912.
This, again, was contract" and
the repeal is utterly nugatory.
The Court of Errors, at its last
sitting, decided case involving the
construction of this section, and the
effect of subsequent Legislation upon
its operations at this time, and came
to the conclusion that the notes of
the bank now outstanding were not
a good tender in payment of taxes.
An appeal has been taken to the Su-
preme Court of the United States,
and the case is now on the docket of
that court. The proposed legislation
seems to assume that tho Court of
Errors were wrong, and that the re-
peal of the Act was necessary to get
rid of the obligation of the State to
receive these notes in payment of
dues to the State. The case of Frap-
nell 0S. Woodruff, in the matter of
the Bank of Arkansas, 10 Howard, is
decisive of the incompetency of the
State to effect such result by q
"repeal" of the Act. Such repeal,
as decided by that case, becomes
simply futile attempt by tho Legis-
lature of State to violate the Con-
stitution of the United States in
'impairng the obligation of n con-
tract" and will be disregarded by
the Supreme Court of the United
States.
May we not hope that the State
will yet be saved from the folly and
disgrace of placing this crude, if not
corrupt, conception on the statute