The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1873-09-06
SATURDAY, SEPT. 6, 1873.

and has ever been the indisputably
sound one that in low and comm"n hon.
esty tho state should levy taxes TO an
amount sufficient to pay every dollar of
her just obligations-and that whatso-
ever is more than this "come,h of evil ="
Let us now, for our own satisfaction
rs taxpayers, examine the decision of
the Supreme Court in tho Morton Bliss
mdndunus care and see whether the
position of that Court is antascnistic
either in theory or in practice to the
visw we have just eN.
1t IS a well settled principle of law
that fraud is nevo, to he presumed. If
it is intended to vitiata contract on
the ground of fra I'D the facts constitut
ing the fraud must be oHegcd aud
P'orcd.
frd"S o'f'osd est ct non pracSwmundd
was the language of the Roman juris-
I consuits-"lraud is odious and not t be
presumed" The common Law maxim
| that "every man is to be prcsu med in.
nocent until he is proven gully" fnvolv-
es the same just and reasonable priuci.
! ple. r
1t is equally well settled that seal
ioa contract rresumos consideration
sufficient to support the contract. And
it has never yet been doubted that the
bond or obligation Of sovereign STATE
carried on,its face the presumption, at
least, that the State WAS liable acc ord
ing to the terms Of the oblisat :on, for
the amount which the State thereby
promised to pay.
In the case before the Supreme Court
the relators, Morton, Bliss l. Co., al
legged that Icy were tho owners aud
holders Of five certain bonds issued bv
the State, the interest cp which was due
and unpaid, aud demanded that writ
OF mandamus issue TO compel Tho re.
spondcnt, az Cumptrolcr-Gc Gcnsfal of The
State, to isSue directions t. the raspcc-
tive County Auditors, TO levy a tax, in
addition TO all other taxes imposed bv
law, for the payment OF the inte: est due
and TO become due on such bonds"
On the showing mndc by the r,lo,or.
they were plainly entitled to relief Of
some character. Ii they had ln,ncl
money to the State tl,oy were clearly
entitled to the interest thereon.
1t was not disputed that they were
the "owners aud holders of the bonds
in question. The bonds spoke for
themselves-they promised interest on
their face, aud their possession By the
relatois established such claim against
the State as legally resulted from that
possession
Now, after considering, and deciding
against the respondent, all the questions
raised by him as to the cohstitu ticnality
of these bonds, what language is held
by the Court as to the good faith, the
fraudulent or on-fraululent character
of these Eve bonds?
/ The Court says in one place at is
not alleged that any fraud was COIN
mittcd in the ISSUE" at is not alleged
in what precise manner the bonds in
suit were disposed Of"
Again the Court holds the following
languages
"An objection is taken 10 the bonds
get forth in petitions 4 aud 5, as follows:
THAT large portion Of the bonds
issued under said act have been returned
to Che State treasury upon the substitu-
tion in their stead of other bonds ofthe
State, aud this respondent Is Uniformed,
and SO charges the fact to be, that the
bonds so returned, aud thereby redeem
sdlaud paid, have been reissaod without
warrant of law" This ayerment, as 10
stands, is immatsrial. II il not alleged
that he bonds set forth BY The relasors