The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1872-11-14
The Subsidy Tran-actTon-.Ligh
Wanted

has been made to the public inquiries in
regard to the action of the authorize:
concerning the Warrants issued to the
Ripley Railroad Company under the
Subsidy Act
The statement that the letter of the
Attorney General to the Auditor SIS the
''only opinion which he has given upon
the validity of the Railroad Subsidy, .
Is altogether a mistake. after the War
ants were issued, the Attorney General
instructed the State Treasurer not to pay
them on the ground that the law was un-
constitutional, or in other words that the
| Warrants were a fraud on the State
They were received in good faith by the
| Company, and this opinion of the law
| officer of the State Administration de-
stroys their value and amounts to repu-
diation of the obligations incurred under
law which was passed with a great
flourish of trumpets (and by a secret
flourish of greenbacks We suspect Sign
ed by Gov. Aleorn, appreciated by act
ing Gov. Powers-and Landed by the
Mongrels generally as the pet measure of
the Carpet Bag regime. 1t does not
matter whether, in order to pay off his
laborers, Col. Falkner has parted with
the Warrants or not-whether they have
passed into other hands or not-the prin-
ciple involved is the same, and the State
by the action Of the same authorities
who brought the iniquitous law into
existence, has dishonored her own obi
cations
But there are other mysteries not ex-
plained or cleared up in this publication
of the Attorney General 1t has been
asked again and again, how it was that
after giving peremptory instructions to
the Auditor not to issue the Warrants,
he subsequently changed his instructions
to that office and authorized him to issue
them? 1t is reported and has not yet
been contradicted, that pending the first
instructions, the President of the Com
pany employed counsel and paid large
fees to effect modification Of those in
structions so as to enable him to draw the
Warrants which he claimed Certain it
Is, there was a hitch in the proceedings
for time, to the no little distress of Col
Falkner, who had relied upon the Sub
sidy for money wherewith to pay off his
aD,,IovaaS. ap1 ~ - ~ ..r4,;D that ~ n
Warrants were subsequently issued as
that after they had been thus issued and
the faith of the State pledged, the State
Treasurer was instructed to dishonor
them. These are the mysteries about
this transaction which are not solved by
the following explanation of the At
torney General but which ought to be,
and must be, solved. The case is pend
ing before the bar of public opinion, and
all the facts must come to light
From the Pilot.
The following communication from At
torney General Morris, on the subject of the
Railroad Subsidy, with an official opinion
in the Ripley Railroad case. will be read
with more than ordinary interest:
The following is the only official opinion,
or opinion OF any kind, ever given by Ar
torney GeneraI Morris to the Auditor of
Public Accounts, or to any other person,
upon the validity of the railroad subsidy or
the duty of the Auditor under the Act re-
qniriug him to audit tn account and issue
the warrant on the Treasury on the Com
missioners' report and Governors requisi-
ton; aud this opinion here given has not
been in any respect modified or changed by
the Attorney General. 1t will be seen that
there is not and cannot be any ''repudia-
ton" on the subject. Each of the warrants
issued shows on its face the purpose tor
which and the acts under which they are
issued. If these acts referred to on the face
Of each warrant be unconstitutional, then
the subsidy shall never be paid, notwith-
standing the condition OF the claim, nor,
however, because "repudiated," but because
null and void from the beginning; and the
brokers and spectators took them at large
discount suffered by the railroad company,
aud with full notice printed on the face of
each warrant. Ii they he valid, then they
will be paid collar for dollar. Under this
opinion the delay and risk is taken by the
brokers and spectators alone. But ii the
warrants had been refused the delay and
risk would have fell directly on the labor
ers who built the road, and who. by means
OF this opinion, suffered no loss on their
wages. And in the meantime the State,
through the Attorney General, will have
the benefit of judicial decision upon the
question of the constitutionahty of the
Act: