The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-05-30
The Outstanding Issues of the Bank Of
the State of South Carolina.

4
cision Of Judge Carpenter, relative to the
bills of the Bahk of the State of South Caro-
lima, and as foreshadowing the possible, we
may say the probable, effect of that decision
upon the early and final settlement OF those
issues of the Bank, we propose to call atten-
ton to the case of Furman VS.. Nichol, lately
decided BY the Supreme Court of the United
States, and involving the rights of the bill
| holders of the Bank Of the State of Ten
nessee.
In 1888 the State of Tennessee chartered
q bank in the name and for the benefit OF
the State, and pledged the faith and credit
of the State to it's support. 1t was further
provided by the charter I" that the bills or
"notes of the said corporation originally
made payable, or which shall have become
payable, on demand in gold or silver coin,
" shall be receivable at the treasury Of the
&c State, and By all @1-collectors and Other
".pu6ltc officers T.. all payments for ta:ces
"an0 other moneys due the State"
By the new code Of the State Of Tennessee,
it was provided that tax collectors should
receive in payment of taxes only such bank
notes as are current at par.
On the Sd August, 1866, Furman rendered
to Nichol, public officer, in payment OF
taxes. certain bills of the Bank of Ten
nessee issued prior to May, 1861. The bills
having been refused, Furman applied for a
maudoD,uS, requiring that officer to accept
them. The petition for the mandamus did
not show when the bills came into the hands
OF Furman.
The Supreme Court Of Tennessee refused
the nsantlamuS and the petitioner appealed
- the Supreme Court Of the United States.
In this court it was held that:
l. The section of the charter of the bank
above quoted was contract in the nature
of a guarantee between the State and the
holders Of the notes of the bank, and that it
was not in the constitutional power OF the
Legislature to repeal the section, so as to
affect the notes which at the time were in
circulation.
2. That this guarantee is not restricted to
the person Who receives the bill from the
bank, but attaches to tn" note and goes rciM
ii ere,yuAe,e, and invites every one having
taxes to pay to take it, and obGges the State
to receive it in payment Of taxes.
8. That this contract was not repealed by
the new code of the State Of Tennessee and
that the court does not taoor the repeal Of
charter privileges by mere implication
The Supreme Court accordingly awarded
to the billholders the writ OF mandamus,
requiring the tax-collector to take the bills
in payment Of taxes.
1t appears that soon after the dateof issue
lS6l) of the bills in question, a disruption
Of the government of Tennessee took place;
one portioo OF it maintaining its relations to
the Federal Government, and claimuS to be
the government another portion OF it max
ing the same claim and taking refuge within
the Confederate lines. This latter fraction,
to which the Supreme Court of the United
States applies the term "insurgents," got
possession Of and took with it in its retreat,
the assets of "The Bank of the State of Ten
nessee," and, it is alleged, continued the
issue of bills in the name of that bank with
in the territory OF the Confederacy. As to
the bills issued under these circumstances,
the court declines the expression Of an opin-
ion; reticence which is not of much conse-
ouence to the holders OF bills OF the Bank OF
the State of South Carolina, .inasmuch as
that Bank was never placed in similar cir
cumstauces, and the late decision Of Judge
Carpenter has established that its bills issued
after December, 1860, are on the legal foot
inc of those issued before that date.
The bearing OF the decision OF the Supreme
Court of the United States upon the entire
settlement of this vexed case of the Bank Of
the State of South Carolina, lies in the fact
that the clause of the charter OF the Bank
of the State OF Tennessee under considera-
ton, is identical with, and evidently copy
of, section of the charter Of the Bank of
the State OF South Carolina, and although the
late Appeal Court Of this State took an op-
pos;te view of the law, the subsequent action
of the supreme Court of the United States
gives 10 the bllholders of the Bank of the
State Of Suulh Carolina ample redress under
the mandaasus OF the highest judicial tri-
bunal of the country. Inasmuch as large
proportion OF The bills of the Bank Of the
State of South Carolina have been absorbed
by the issue of bonds under the act OF 1865,
and as the bills issued in 1868 and 1864
will be subject to he heavily scaled, the
gross amount outstanding of this State Ii
ability cannot be very great; but it will be
interesting to our urreaders to know the course
pursued by the State of Tennessee in Cir
cumstances similar to those in which this
State may be placed.
Upon the publication OF the judgment OF
the Supreme Court in Furman vs.. Nichol,
the Legislature Of Tennessee promptly met
its obligations, by enacting that the tax
collectors of the State should receive the
bills declared to be valid in payment OF taxes,
and repealed its statutes containing contrary
provisions. To prevent, however, the en-
barrassment which would arise from the ne