The Opelousas courier., 1871-06-03
Limitation Of the State Debt.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

The Supreme Court ycstetdav decided
the case OF Solomon & Simpson. asSi"nrcs
of Nix on. versus the Auditor OF the State,
in tav pr ofthr dcirndant This Was an
application for manamus to tI.c Audi
tor REQUIRING him to deliver TO the plAiu-
titl> his warrant upon the Treasurer of
the State tor the SUM OF $:h,NH', CT there
ahontH, under the authority of !. certain
;'ct of the legislature in favor of !. q.
Nixon and to re- imb,,sr him for discount
on WARRANTS received by him in payment
for printing services rendered t" the
State. Fhc Auditor refused to deliver
the vibrant on the ground that there
were no funds in the Treasury upon which
to draw. and consequently the >>uc Of
an obligation for the amount claimed,
would constitute an increase of the debit
of the State which had already exceeded
the constitutional limit Of twenty-five
millip AIS of dollars.
The Auditor alleged he was prohibited
by IL late amendment to the Constitution
from increasing the debt Of the State be
yond the sum named in the amendment
The decision in the lower court was
against the plaintiff, although not on the
ground ass gncd by the Auditor, and tn"
Supreme Court attiru,s the Judgment
without concerning in the reasons upon
whcl, it was based. The Supreme Court
holds that the constitutional Limitation
of the State debt has been reached, and
that all the obligations of the State, in
clutinS the bonds loaned to the property
banks and bonds endorsed by the State
and all eventual obligations. are included
in that debt 1t further holds the APP
preparation in favor of Mr.. Nixon to be
unconstitutional.
We may now ask the Auditor how he
is to explain his conduct in delivering
his warrant on the Treasury to Attorney
General Belden, in satisfaction Of his
claim upon the State, pending the appeal
in the case of Solomon & Simpson, just
decided The demand of Brldcn was
to be tested by the same rule. If the
claim of Solomon g. Simpson shouN
have been rejected on the ground that
to nav it would be to violate the conSti-
tutinnal provision limiting the debt, the
claim of Belden should have been re-
sisted on the same ground, aud we pre-
sumo the Supreme Court would have
sustained the Auditor in resisting it.
The cases were similar in character.
The re were no funds in the Treasury to
pay either. They couldonly be satisfied
by warrants of the Auditor on the Treas
urcr.
The Supreme Court, it seems. holds
that warrants are obligations which must
be regarded as debts of the State. The
Auditor in settling Will, the Attorney
General has therefore violated the law
which he at first made show OF obey
ing. His conduct is unaccountablc, cx-
cept on one hypothesis, and we are un-
willing to adopt it, but it is incumbent
on Mr.. Graham to justify his proceeding
before the tax payers of the State, if it
be in his power. We have always re-
carded him aa faithful public officer,
and should have to regret to have to
change our opinion. His silence will
compel us to believe that Mr.. Belden
en- ployed arguments to which it was not
cre.litablc to the Auditor to yield. An
officer in: his position ought to resist
firmly all improper influences. and has
no rig ght to complain if the public should
draw unfavorable inferences from his
compliance with unlawful demands upon
the State Treasury.-N. 0. Bee.