Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-07-29

denees of an indebtedness by the State
for work and labor actually performed
for the State.
It is section nine, article ten of the
constitution, " the State may contract
debts to supply casual defects OIL failure
in revenues, or to meet expenses not 9th
erwise provided fOr.u Now, the grant
of the lands to the State by the general
government, "te enable the State OfAr-
kansas to construct the necessary levees
and drains to reclaim the swamp and
overflowed lands therein and the ac-
ceptanee by the State Of the lands s o
granted was IN effect compact between
the general government and the State,
that the State would construct the neces-
sary levees and drains for that purpose;
and it plainly appears by the whole of
the legislation of the State, as well prior
to as subsequent to the war; that it was,
and is the purpose and intent of the
State, fully to carry out that compact.
If in doing this it involves anFsT
EXPENSE TO THE STATE,
may not the State, under thu plain pro-
vision Of section nine above quoted, con-
tract a debt for the purpose of meeting
that expense? Suppose the State
had chosen to keep the undisposed-
of lands to herself, and give
in to construct these necessary leyees
and drains upon cash contracts, Will
any n deny that, for the purpose of OBJ
tanning the necessary money, the State
might not have contracted a debt2 The
only restriction in that event would
have been, that the money arising from
the creation of such debt shall (shOuld)
be appropriated to the purposes for which
it was obtained, or to pay The debt 81
contracted, and no other."
The State having chosen rather to
contract the debt to the persons who
actually did the work, than for money
to pay for the work, is the debt not
equally binding upon the State? Surely,
no n can contend that it is not. Then,
if the debt may be lawfully contracted,
may not the State issue her bonds or
obligations to pay the debt in such form
as she may adopt. These questions
carry with them, ~severally, their own
proper answers, and thus the facts APP
pear too plain for cavil: First, That the
State was bound by compact and
charged with the duty and trust to
THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT
and the people of the State to construct
the necessary levees and drains.
Second, that the State did I'M
dertake and prosecute the work
as a public work, and as part
of the internal improvements of and by
the State. Third, that this work in
volved an expense to the State not
otherwise provided for, and for which
the State might contract debts; and, as
a necessary incident, issue bonds or
such other instruments as she chose, as
evidences of that debt. But nowhere,
nor by any provision of the constitution
of that State, is the State prohibited
from issuing bonds for any debt, OF any
lawful purpose of the State, on account
of the State. She is only prohibited
from loaning her credit. 1t is not hard
to see the intent Of the people of the
State in Convention, for declaring this
restriction. 1t plainly was to prevent
either the State or the counties of the
State from loaning their credit to banks,
railroads and other interpretations and
associations, which had been found to be
so great an evil, without first submitting
the matter to the calm, deliberate iudg-
ment of the people, who Were to bear
the burthen of taxation, for the pay
ment and
REDEMPTION OF THE CREDIT
when given. 1t was not intended to
fetter the State in performing her vaTi-
Gus functions and duties to the people
and to the general government. Sup
pose it to become necessary for
the State to incur the expense
of arming her citizens for the
aid and support of the government
in a foreign war. Could not the State
issue her bonds to raise money for that
purpose? No one will dispute this. Why
not, then, for the purpose of meet
ing any other legitimate expense of the
state? There is certainly no cOnstitu-
CiOnal inhibition to any of these. The
State is only inhibited from loaning her
credit. 1t is certainly not lOaning her
credit when she issues her bond to pay
u just debt, or as evidence of a just debt
of her own, and for which she has re-
full value by the proper estimate,
and information of her unswOrn officers.
l submit that it is thus fully shown
that these bonds are the bonds of the
State of Arkansas, lawfully issued, and
so are a part of the landed Indebtedness
of that State, unless they are within the
prohibition of the Constitution of the
States, "no State shall emit bills
Of credit" and this depends upon the
fact whether they are "bills of credit "
the meaning Of that provision,
which
QUESTION
will now consider: For the sense in
which the term "bills of creditr is
used in the constitution, we must
.ook into the history of the times
proceeding, and at the time of the franz
ing that instrument. The States had
hen recently come out of the war with
Great Britain, during and prior to which
he several States had flooded the cOun-
with their W paper, or notes, COM
monty called "bills of credit" for the
purpose of circulation, and which did
circulate as money; and which, from {
heir great p~rOfusion, the want of any (
unds provided for their redemption by
he States, and the fact that a State !
,ould not be sued, had become to be ,
worthless, and so left the country with +
nj any circulating medium or currency s
or the ordinary purposes of the people. i
the members of the convention at once
the great Importance of the General :
Government taking to itself the control
# the currency of the country, and so
provided that emo State shall 8 : coin a
money, emit bills of credit" etc. That |
;, that no State should thereafter issue c
NY paper with the intent that the same 5
hould be used and circulated as money |
n the ordinary business of life, as the 1
had Heretofore done. Mr.. Madi- c
on, in number forty-four of the Federal I
st, treating of this prohibition, says:
The extension of the prohibition to 1
ills of credit must give pleasure to I
EVERY CITIZEN, i
n proportion to his love of justice and f
nowledge of the true springs of public y
rosperity. The loss which America o
as sustained since the peace from the il
effects OF paper money" etc. Il
Iere, undoubtedly, Mr.. Madison means "
othing else than that these bills of p
redit, prohibited by the constitution, o
7ere such as were issued and circulated V
S money. Again, in the anne number
e SAYS: ain addition TO these persua- -
i've considerations, il may be observed
hat the same reasons which show the d.
eeessity of denying to the States the d,
over of regulating coin prove with IL
quail force that they ought not to be at I'll
berty to substitute a paper medium in p,
lace of cOin.r These views of Mr.. eI
Iadison have been adopted and the ju- I'll
icial sanction given to them by the ii
upreme Court of the United States, be- =
with the case of Craig as. tie
tate of Missouri, 4 Peters's Reports,