The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1873-01-11

] tors cannot demand anything of the treasure
until after the respondent has been compelled
to do his duty. 1t is his duty TO levy and col
| lect this tax ''in the same manner and at the
same time with the regular annual taxes
levied Dy The State" This duty should have
J been performed on or before the 18th Novem
! ber, annually. General Statutes p. IS; Com
monweallh vs. Commissioners, 81 Penn, 2z6
| 2 This Is q public duty resting on the re-
spondent, aud enforceable at the suit of any
| person Interested IN its performance. Moses
| on Mand., l26, l27. Commonwealth vs. Com.
missioners, 80 Penn, 223, and other cases
cited.
g. He said that demand was necessary In
the case of public officer, and cited hume
| rOus authorities.
4. He denied that the false representations
made by the Blue Ridge Railroad Company, II
they were admitted, impaired the validity oi
the scrip. There was abundant consideration
for the scrip outside OF all their representa-
tions. The act Itself set forth the consdera.
tion OF the scrip. namely, the recovery aud
destruction OF the bonds. This consideration
had been received, and was now retained by
| the State.
The act of March 6. 1871, called the ''consol-
idation act, t,"was valid statute which repealed
the conditions imposed by the original act OF
September Is, 1868. 1t had been frequently
said that this act was in violation of section
20. article 2, of the constitution, but that act
was germane to the purpose OF the act, The
purpose OF the act was to facilitate aud render
desirable the consolidation of the two roads.
II did not impose any obligations to consoll-
date, but only held out Inducements to that
end. Its provisions took full effect without
consolidation, and among these was the pro-
vision repeating the conditions imposed by
the act of September Is, 1868.
The great purpose Of the Legislature, In the
act of March 2, 1872, was to recover and de-
stroy the bonds endorsed by the State. Taat
purpose was effecled, and now the REALTORS
demand the payment OF their scrip, which
they have received in return for their bonds.
There had been no failures of consideration 10
the State. but the great object OF the act was
accomplished By the retiring OF the bonds.
All defences 10 the payment Of these bonds
could be made In this proceeding as well as at
any time. and the respondent had no cause TO
claim tnat they should be allowed to make
this defence elsewhere.
4. Mr.. Chs-berlain next went Into an
elaborate discussion Of the scrip under Sec
tions Z, 10 and IA of Article OF the State
Constitution. He said the State had all power
to contract public debls In the absence OF ex-
press prohibitions In the State Constitution.
Section 7 was merely a restriction on the
mode of contracting debts for extraordinary
expenditures. 1t was not restriction on the
other purposes. Section 10 authorizing the
issue OF scrip certificates, &C.. for the redemp-
ton OF other evidences of Indebtedness,
could not be limited by the words 'pre-
vousy issued" TO debts contracted
prior to the adoption of the constitution. 1t
means simply the evidences OF Indebtedness
Issued at any time prior to the time ef the
Issuing of the new scrip, DC. Section IA can.
not be understood in the absolute sense OF
the words used. This would lead to con-
flct of this section with the 10th section.
The 10th section must be understood as re.
quirement simply that all Slate debts by way
of loan must De upon State bonds alone. This
leaves the 10th section In full force and effect
as grant Of power TO issue scrip, &C., IN lieu
of other evidences OF Indebtedness.
g. Had the Legislatures right to endorse the
Blue Ridge Bonds? He c0ntended that the
constitution contained no prohibition OF the
guaranteeing of the bonds OF corporations.
He read also from the Constitutional Conven-
tion of 1868 in which section was proposed
expressly prohibiting the guaranteeing OF
the bonds of corporations by the State,
which section, after much debate, was stricken
out.
He concluded that the State had that power
and that 1t had been properly exercised In
The endorsement OF The Blue Ridge bonds.
These bonds were, therefore, an obligation
properly and lawfully incurred by the State.
and they came under the meaning OF the
words used in the 10th Section OF Article OF
the Constitution, "Evldences OF Indebtedness
previously Issued" Tne right Of the State
under that section to redeem these bonds was
undeniabe.
6. He next examined the question whether
the scrip was "oill of credit" and went into
8 careful examination OF the cases OF Craig
vs. Missouri, Pet. 42l, and Briscoe vs. Ken
lucky, II Pet. 204, and reached the conclusion
that under those cases the scrip was not re-
pugnant 10 the Constitution Of the United
States.
7. Mr.. Chamberlain said that be now adj
vauced to the most important position OF This
argument. 1t was that, admitting that the
scrip was a 'sbill of credit" within the mean-
Ing OF the Unlted States Constitution, 1t was
still obligatory on the State 10 redeem 1t by
the leyying of this tax. Granting that The
scrip could not be received for taxes, nor re-
Issued for payment OF dues from the State, 1t
was stil true that the State had realized The
full value of the scrip, and that no law or
principle OF law forbade The levying OF the
tax to redeem the acrip.
He elaborated this point at much length.
and insisted that the contract still su0slsted
and was fully capable of enforcement at the
hands OF the Slate. even If the scrip was re-
pugnaut TO the United States Constitution.
This was the impregnable position OF this
argument. Lie COuotuCEollOu moo lSSOlFCut
the obligation to redeem was complete, and
the REALTORS demand their rights.
8. He next addressed himself to the inquiry
whether the time having elapsed for the levy.
ing of the tax, it could now be drawn before
another year. He said this was preposterous.
Tue acknowledgements having neglected his
duty at the proper time, he could now be COM
PEELED to do his duty whenever this court
should order 1t.
9. In regard to the proceedings now pend
ing In the Fifth Circuit, he said that those pro-
ceediDgs did not reach TO the case which the
relators here make. Those proceedings asked
only the eDjoining OF the Issue aud circulation
of the scrip, and did not touch the question of
the duty of the lcvying of this tax. This case
is wholly outside of That case, and this case Is
not only not Involved In those proceedings,
but rests on Independent grounds of Its own.
10. Finally he urged that If these relators
were entitled to this remedy there should be
no hesitation in granting 1t. 1t would then
be legal obligation instead, as the respondent
claims, of being financial question resting
In the discretion of any State officer.
After Mr.. Chamberlain, Mr.. Haskell followed
In finished argument against the scrip. he
confined himaelf strictly to the question of
The violation of the constitution OF the State
in the act authorizing the issue of the reve-
nue bond scrip, and maintained this position
To the entire satisfaction Of the outsiders, and