The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1869-05-26
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
s.a Raleigh. May 18th, 1869.

W. ]. YATES, ESQ.,:
DEAR SIR: notice in your issue OF the
18th the following statement:
1--WE see on the printed list OF the AS
SCISSORS several columns for entering the
special tax levied for paying the interest on
the Railroad appropriations, some OF when
are clearly unconstitutional and so under
stood by the Public Treasurer and State au-
thoritieS."
This, and the sentence following 1t, seems
to intimate a condemnation of my course IN
reference to these taxes. 1t is the duty OF
the Auditor to prepare the blanks for the
tax list, so that am ia no wise responsible
for their accuracy. But, in my opinion, the
Auditor was right in including the special
taxes in the levies.
In the first place, the General Assembly,
after the decision of the Supreme Court in
the Chatham Railroad case, passed new acts
in behalf of several companies, avoiding,
as it was thought, the constitutional difficult
ty.
Secondly. The other appropriations on
the list were for the completion of Railroads
unfinished at the adoption of the Constitu-
ton, and in which the State had a diect
pecuniary interest, and therefore the con-
stitutional inhibition did not arise
In all these acts q special tao is Leoaed and
comnandedto be collected.
Thirdly. 1t is true the Treasurer is di-
rected to withhold bonds from the COM
panies in order to force them to pay certain
amounts ofinterest for two years to the Pub
lie Treasurer But there is no direction that
!! the special taaes shall not be collected on the
contrary, the bill introduced by Gen. Estes,
Chairman of the Finance Committee of the
House of Representatives,, for the sus-
pension of these special taxes tor two years,
which passed the House, failed to pass the
Senate. And how are we to know that the
Companies will actually pay the amounts
required to the Treasury? Possibly they
4, may prefer to lose the bonds rather than
pay the cash. Their loss would not be very
great as the amount of bonds withheld is
only two for one, while the market price for
new bonds is very little over fifty cents in
the dollar. However this may be, as said
above, the special taxes are not authorized
to be suspended.
Fourthly. Ii it be contended that there
are other constitutional objections to the
levy of these special taxes, certainly such
ministerial officers as the Auditor, Treasurer,
SC, should not become judges in this
matter, and of their own head nulilfy the
deliberate action of the General Assembly.
If an act be unconstitutional, the Courts are
open, whose duty it is to determine these
matters Let the aggrieved party resort to
the Courts. The wheels of Government
would not run a week if each ministerial
officer should, on his own private Judgment,
declare void and refuse to execute plain
laws on the statute book The only way to
secure harmonious action is for such officers
to obey the law as written, leaving to the
Courts, the constitutional guardians OF the
Constitution and laws, to intervene for the
relief of any party who thinks himself in
jured, or about to be injured, by an uncon-
stitutional enac ment.
In writing this communication beg to be
distinctly understood that | express no
opinion whatever as to the legality or lille
gality, expediency or inexpediency OF the
acts of Assembly to which you refer. In
my Judgment it would be improper and
presumptuous for me to do so. AS in your
editorial you specially mentioned the Public
Treasurer, in terms of disapprobation.
think it my duty to explain the position in
which |, as well as the Auditor, stand in
this matter.
Very respectfully,
D. A. JENKINS,
Public Treasurer.