The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1873-03-27

sUDJECJ. UIHV
~ had some influence in determining my
i hrse in making the application.
~ what was the Attorney Generals re-
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFIcE.l
JACKSON, Miss Sept. 4, 1872.
ISIR: In reply to your inquiry as to the
PIN of the Ripley Railroad for Subsidy
hder the legislation of this State, to en-
Nrage internal improvements, | beg TO
III that II the proposition were now to pay
Il Subsidy, under an appropriation for
III Eat purpose, there are constitutional diff
#alties witch, in my judgment, would have
D fst TO be solved by tile courts Bot as
0ur functions IN The matter relate only to
an1iting and determining the amount
Which, under the terms Of the several acts
Whether valid or not, would appear to have
1eeu earned, and n the contest NAV lust a.
xfell be made upon the question OF pay
Ilent, think you will be safe In obevin y
tie requisition of the Governor in issuing
tae Warrants My advice, however, is, that
sou viii issue them in separate accounts
and write in the face of every warrant the
ecount upon which, and the acts under
Which, the same is issued.
Respectfully, J. 5. MoRRIs,
Attorney General.
60. Ola you issue the warrants in such
Sums rs Col. Falkuer desired?
"a | did.
&c. Do you know who purchased or held
fhcm afterward?
a. 90 not; have only seen one or two of
diem since.
q 20. DO you know who had those YOU say !?
a. | cannot recolect now. One for $500
Fa~ in TIE hands OF some one from the
Aprthern part Of the State.
10. Was Col. Falkner here when YOU re-
4nrued from New York /?
A. | do not know; | saw him next dav.
Iii q. Did you consult, or have the advice of
#By other attorney ut that time?
4. l did not.
=. II you had been shown by the Attor-
icy General that there was no constitution
III objection, would you have issued the
Warrants
A. | would. Ii is my custom to be guided
AY the laws As | find them on the statute
cok unless otherwise directed.
e II his opinion had been against the
4Dusttutionalitv of the act would YOU
e ave issued the Warrants
a. | weuld not.
60 If ne haC given opinions both for and
gmnst TIE constitutionality of the act
you'd you have Issued the warrants?
A. | would nor, after submitting the ones-
ion to him for an opinion.
20. Did YOU, or not. know at the time YOU
kked his opinion, that he had given or
FTitten one>
y. l did not.
60. Did Col. Falkner have trouble in OBJ
aiming his warrants? Do you know Of his
Employing attorneys, and of there being
8 pnhicting opinions on the subject?
# a. Not 10 my own knowledge. Col
salkner seemed excited, and spoke Of the
Aliroad hands waiting for his return to get
heir f.;y, and said If he returned without
nc would be nobbed--or expressed the
48ane in substance.
~. Is it the hauit OF the Law Officer of the
MAJe 70 instruct the Auditor of Public Ac-
Malnts To issue warrants under an uncon-
sMtutional act, and would not such practice
aAd TO the serious injury of innocent pur-
sA4aSers of such warrants?
q. 1t Is not cGStcmar for the Attorney
q Aener1 to order the issuance of warrant.
e knder au unconstitutional act. 1t woult
ID tn serious injury OF innocent parties
~. Is IL not understood. that in all case
#hen the Auditor issues his warrant, espe-
aily when Issued by the direction or con
I'D OF the Attorney General. that such
@rraat will be hoaored by the Treasurer
- II +. | istYer heard OF any being re-
Mted before.
q Is it not, in your opinion, bad faitl
~ the part 81 public official and humil.
Mtlng 10 the State 10 have her paper issued
10 thrown upen lie market, and then fol
81 official To direct that such paper shall
@ dishonored a6 the place where it is pro
$50 to be paid
"a. It certainly would be.
fo Mr. HILL
~. Do you recolleet being at n railroad
Mketing il the Representatives Hall in 1871
Mad expressing doubt as to the constitution.
#Kfy OF the Subsidy Act?
81. | do; and being called on for speech
&c L rs my opinion, that under the Con
8ution, the State could not give aid Il
iroads unless the money was in the Trea
~, a the credit OF the State connot b
#ned or pledged. Ii. MUsGRovE.
@StiHslony OF Judge a. Anderson
al MKIORNEY GENERAL SHOWS WITNESS
H. CLEAR AND FoRCIBLE WRITTEN oPIN-
ION THAT THE SUBSIDY LAW WAS
UNCONVENTIONAL TELLS
HIM THAT THE RIPLEY RAIL
ROAD COMPANY SHOULD
GET NARY RED.
TO Mr.. Lowry:
~ W-re you ever in any meeting or eau
IL here at the Capitol, in reference To rail
DDS where the present subsidy Law wa
&cussed?
a a. | was; session before last; in ls7,
4 ben the law WAS first proposed.
-. What railroad nen were there?
"A IA. Col. Mann, Gen. Pierce, and, thinl
Il me one from Vicksburg.
A