The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1873-06-11
The N.joinder Of Comptroller-Gsnernl
HoKe.

Comptrolier.Generai doge, by Attor.
ney- General Melton, yesterday, fled the
following rejoinder to reply No. B.. in
the Morton, Bliss & Go. mdnddnaus case:
FIRST. This respondent, by way of
rejoinder to the replication of the re.
lators to the first cause set forth in the
return herein:
l. As to the first section, denies chat
the fixing OF q specific rate per oentnm
of taxation is duty which has hereto
fore boon performed by the State
Auditor, and, at all times. one which ap-
pertains in it's nature to the Office of this
respondent.
2. As to the second section. he AYERS
that the mutters herein contained are
sufficient in law to justify this respond
ent in refusing to give the notice de-
manded by the relators.
the allegations of the relators, and AYERS
that correct registry" of all the bonds
Of the State which "exhibits the number
and amount thereof" has not been kept
at the State Treasury; that the said re-
gistry does not exhibit the number and
amount Of oil the bonds which were re-
deemed by the substitution OF other
bonds. known as "conversion bonds;"
that the said registry does not exhibit
the number and amount Of such re-
deemed bonds as were afterwards re-
issued, and arc now outstanding without
authority Of law; thai the duty Of exa-
mining such registry does not devolve
upon him, and cannot be enforced by
mdnddmas; and that if it were his duty
to make such inquiry, it would not fur
nish the requisite data for tue perform
ance of the duty demanded.
4. AS to the fourth sectioH he renews
the allegation Of the return herein, and
denies that it is his duty to give notice of
any other :Ate for or during the current
fiscal year.
5. AS to tho fifth section, lie denies
that the matters stated are sufficient to
warrant the issue of the writ, and sub
mits that the petition of the relators is
premature. Aud as to all other matters
in the said first replication stated, this
respondent reiterates the averments con-
tained in the first cause of the return,
and submits that the snid replication is
insufficient in law.
SECOND. BY way of rejoinder to the
replication to- the second cause set forth
in the return:
l. AS to the first section, this respond
ent re-afirms the allegations of the re-
turn herein. and submits that the mat
ters stated in reply thereto are insult.
cient in law.
2. AS to the second section, this re-
spondent re-alfirms the allegations of the
return herein, and submits that the pro-
vision of the Act Of March 13, 1872,
whereby is required to be made O regis
tration of all the outstanding bonds of
the State, as condition precedent to
the payment Of interest thereon, is not
repngnant to the Constitution of this
State or to the Constitution of the United
States. And as to all other matters in
the said second replication cQntsined,
this respondent reiterates the averments
contained in the second cause of the re-
turn, and submits that the said replica
ton is insufficient in law.
THIRD By way of rejoinder to the re-
plicRticn to the third canse set forth in
the return:
1. AS to the first section. this respond
ent ayers that the said ACT OF March 13,
1872, commonly known as the "Vali-
dating Act" SO for as it purports to de-
clare valid any bonds which are other
wise invalid, operates to contract pub.
lie debt, and that to that extent the said
Act is unconstitutional and void, for the
reasons: l. That the subject thereof in
that regard is not expressed in the title
of said Act; and, 2. That the said ACT
was not passed by q vote Of two thirds OF
the members Of each branch of the Gen
eral Assembly. and that, therefore, the
said Act cannot operate to validate the
said bonds, or ''to cure, condone or for
give" the Irregularities and unlawfulness
Of their issue.
2. AS to the second section, this re-
spondent. repeating the denials contained
in the rejoinder of the REALTORS first re-
pIication, submits that, whether the said
registry does or does not exhibit the
number and amount of bonds redeemed,
and the number and amount afterwards
re issued, the said bonds so re-issued
without authority of law are not tho
valid obligations of the State. And as
to all other matters in the said third re-
plication contained, this respondent re-
iterates tue averments contained in the
third cause Of the return, and submits
that the said replication is insufficient in
law.
FOURTH. BY way of rejoinder to the
replication to the fourth cause set forth
in the return, this respondent reiterates
tho 0yerments contained in the soid