The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-05-02

tion, and upon the return of nulla bona, sue fol
antdndanlus to force them to collect the money
He then proceeded to show that II anybody had q
lien on the stock of the city. 1t was those to whom
the city pledged it's faith and capital, but who
refused to accept Of the appointed periods named
in the ordinance, that Is, the creditors prior to
1857. That ordinance was passed giving a lien,
1t was true, but it also contained provlso that
"nothing herein contained shall be construed to
prevent the Council from transferring the stock
from one corporation to another, or be construed
to interfere with any existing pledge, II any
party interested therein may be disposed to
inslstn
The Court observed that unless counsel could
find some ordinance specifically pledglng the
payment Of the stock represented by him, he did
not see how he could substantate his claim. 1t
does not appear, and Of course cannot be con-
sidered.
Mr. Corbin, City Attorney, followed. He COM
menced his argument by submitting on AFFIDAVIT
by Mr.. Thomas, the City Treasurer, setting forth
that he was the custodian Of the city funds, and
that the monies deposited in the banks was for
the purpose of meeting certain appropriations
made by ordinance, and for the payment OF
the interest on city stock, due in April, 1870.
he then proceeded to demonstrate that the pur-
ported levy made upon these funds was irregular
and void, as appeared from section 313 Of the
Code. There could be no attachment OF personal
property except by the taking Of actual posses
sion Of it by the sheriff. Tile analogy was carried
out In the next section In reference to real estate.
The levy, therefore, was nothing at all, and the
city would care nothing about 1t, If the banks
did not decline to pay the money. If they had
dlsregarded the levy, lie would not have come
| into court.
Again, that property was not subject to attach
| ment. BY an ordinance ratified February a.
1870, specific appropriations were made for speci-
1c purposes, including the interest on the public
debt. By subsequent ordinance, provision was
made to raise supplies for the current fiscal year.
The legal proposition was that.these funds hav-
ing been raised by taxation, and specifically ap.
proprlated to certain purposes, they cannot be
reached In the manner attempted by any creditor
OF the city. "Pubic monies raised by munl-
cpal corporation, pursuant to law, by tax, for the
purposes OF government, and In the hands OF its
fiscal officers, are not the property OF corpora
tlon, or q debt due to- 1t within the meaning Of
the statute emitting o Judgment creditor OF
corporation to an order requiring the officer to
pay over the monies In satisfaction Of the judg
ment.n Hill, 531. Is Abbott, lo4l
Judge Porter, Of New York, personally informed
him that many attempts had been made to seize
upon the funds Of that city in this very manner,
but 1t was decided by the Court of Appeals that
funds raised by taxation, and appropriated to
specific purposes, and In the hands OF the fiscal
agent ofthe city, to be paid out for city purposes
coull not be reached BY attachment. Making the
application more directly 1t was appareat that il
any creditor could lay his hands upon the funds
of this city, specifically appropriated he could de.
feat and destroy the administration OF the gov
ernmeut. This very case illustrated 1t. Since
this levy had been made, the current expenses OF
the city could not be paid. Drafts OF the City
Treasurer upon the funds deposited in the First
National Bank to meet the Interest due upon
stock are refused payment. oGicial business is
paralyzed, and II the evil continued, the city gov
ernment itself must be dissolved. The court had
intimated remedy against the oIty, and 1t was
perhaps time that nldndamuS lies to compel
City Council to pay city debt.
The Judge said that his mind was very clear
that the debt must be paid In some way.
MT. COrOln Salu lie ulu uOt uChJ that IL !" d
Just, but the question was how and when 1t shall
be paid. The remedy was certainly OF different
character from that which had been adopted.
Hon. ]. B. Campbell said that Mr.. Justice
Swayne once observed that "a right without
remedy is as II 1t were not.h That was precisely
what the City Council were doing in this case
admitting our rights. but denying our remedy.
The City Attorney had moved to set aside the
levy made 1rst because 1t was irregular and con-
trary to law, and secondly, because the property
attempted to be attached was public property. If
there was any irreguarity in the levy, he has not
attempted to show 1t.
The Judge said he did not wish to hear counsel
on that point, as he was convinced that that levy
was good so far as the form was concerned.
Mr. Campbell. Then the question to be consider
ed is, whether the debt due by these banks
cali it money-ylng there to the credit OF the city,
Is subject to execution. That Is the issue. We
deny it.
The Judge. The irregularlty OF the levy is the
point am desirIous OF hearing you upon.
Mr.. Campbell read from the Code, sections 3lo,
o59 1913 and 29S, and continuing his argument,
said: Now, the proposition Of the City Council Is,
that we have levied upen funds which they In
tended to apply to some other purpose than the
payment OF our debt. 1t Is an admitted fact that
the deb. Of the city Is upwards OF five millions Of
dollars, and that these funds were for the pay
ment OF the interest thereon. 1t equally known
that they have taken eway fren thatinterest one
sixth, and yet they come here and claim that we
cannot take our pay. They-they have Withheld
a reserve fund from the interest money, more
| than enough in amount to pay our execution,
and yet they claim 1t Is o fund specially appro-
prlated 1t is like the reply Of debtor who re-
| fuses to pay his honest debt-no sir, you cannot
take that money, because In my Intention, 1t Is ap
proprIated to the support OF my family. II we 60
to White Point we are told that that Is dedicated
to music and the ladies'; If we go to to the Ar
teslan We'll. we are told that that Is dedicated tc
another purpose, and so on. 1t would be impos
sIble to aud any property which 1t would suit the
reluctant debtor to transfer. These Aldermen
then, have no right to levy taxes for specific
purpose, and then Withhold Its application to thai
purpose.
Municipal property is not public property, ant
this is in answer TO the second point OF the City
Attorney-lt is the property Of that which is
known to the law as nothing more nor less thar
a mere individual. The property OF the City Of
| Charleston has no more exemption before youl
Honor than that Of any person who hears me
| ri ri,y ORR har m in6Vilualg