Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-11-27
STATE RESPONSIBILITY.
Important Decision by the SUI
preme Court of the
United States.

state of south Carolina.
| The state, ex rel, Theodore d. Wagner. plain
| tiff in error VS.. John Il. Stoll, County Treas
urer of Charleston County-In error to the
Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina
| No. %.
Mr.. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion
| of the court. el
This is a writ of error TO the Supreme
/ Court Of the State OF South Carolina. The
| defendant in error is an officer whose duty
| it is to collect and receive taxes due to the
| State. The relator was indebted for taxes
| for the year 1870 in the sum of $4,264.95
and rendered to the defendant in the pay.
ment of such taxes bills of the bank known
| as the President and Directors of the Bank
of the State of South Carolina for that
| amount The bills were issued after Dec
20,1SG0. At the time of theft presentation
| the bank did not redeem its notes in specie
| The officers refused to receive them, and
| the relator presented his petition to the
| court for a mandamtlS to compel him to re-
| ceive the same Certain issues of fact were
raised-first, whether the bills rendered
were the bills of the bank named, and,
second, were the bills issued in aid of the
insunection against the United States, OF
to furnish aid to the rebellion. The jury
found that the bills were issued by the
bank, and that they wete not issued in aid
Of the rebellion. Upon an appeal TO the
Supreme Court Of South Carolina, that
| court adjudged that the treasurer was not
| bound to receive the bills, and denied the
motion for a mandamus. From this judg-
ment the plaintiff brings writ of error to
this court.
- ~ fxta Of fI,ta oI,a Of
this bank provides that the bills o. notes of
the said corporation, originally made paya-
Bile on demand in gold or silver coin, shall
be receivable at the Treasury of the State,
either at Charleston or Columbia, and by
all tax collectors and public officers, in all
payments of taxes or other moneys due the
State. 1t is claimed by the defendant in
error that this provision Of the charter was
so modified by an act passed in 1913 that
thereafter the bills of the bank in question
were not receivable for taxes due the State
unless the bank was in fact at the time the
taxes became payable a bank that re
deemed its notes in srecie. This question
was argued beforG this cbuft at d former
term, and having been re-argued with
greater care at the present term, is again
before the court for determination. The
act by which repeal or modification is
claimed to have been made was passed
December 10, 1913, and is in the words
following: Gall taxes for the use and ser
vice of this State shall be paid in specie,
paper medium or the notes of specie-paying
banks of this State, and shall be ascertain
ed and rated by the assessors and collectors
throughout the State respectively, accord
ing to the best Of their knowledge and in
formation
The argument in support of the repeal is
this: that by the sixteenth section Of its
charter the rcceivability Of the notes of the
bank in payment of taxes, or other moneys
due to the State, was guaranteed whether
they were or were not in fact redeemed in
coin when presented in payment; that the
act Of 1913 prohibited the receipt. in pay
ment OF taxes of the notes of any bank
which did not in fact redeem its notes in
specie when presented for payment, and
that the latter act is inconsistent with the
former, and thus effects its repeal or i1odi-
flcation. Between the years 1901 and 1872
the Legislature incorporated five banks, viz:
the Rank OF South Carolina III 1901: the
State Bank Oh South Carolina in 1902, the
Union Bank and the Planters and Mecllan-
rs lDdllh III AtG NtGt iCIn. anu LtIC DdllN Vi
the State Of South Carolina in 1912. -Four
Of these banks contained, in their act of
incorporation the same sixteenth section,
the effect OF which we are now consider
iItg.
In the case of the Planters and Mechan-
les Bank this section was omitted from its
charter Whether this proceeded from in
adveitence or whether it was designed does
not appear. At the next session of the
Legislature, to wit, in 1911, its charter was
amended, and the sixteenth section was
made a part of it in the same words in
which it stood III the charter of the other
banks named. 1t thus appears that this
provision was Intentionally. and regularly
made part of the charter Of the banks i'm
coIporated during these periods. Subse-
quentiy other banks were incorporated by
special acts of the Legislature, whose char
tiers contained provisions on this subject,
but different in important particulars from
the one we have thus far considered. Seven
banks were incorporated between the year
1881 and the year 1886, to wit: The Com
mercial Bank of Columbia, in 1881; the
Merchants Bank Of South Carolina, 1t
Cheraw, in 1888; the Bank Of Camden, in
1885; the Bank of Hamburg, in the same
year: the Bank Of Georgetown, and the
Southwestern Railroad Bank, in 1896. Elk
cept the one last named. each of these char
tiers contained a section inthe words follow
ing, viz: The bills or notes Of the said cor
p0ratiOn originally made payable ON de-
mand, or which shall have become PAYABLE
in gold or silver current coin, shall be re-
ceivable by the tTeaSurers, tax collectors,
solicitors and other public officers in all
payments for taxes or other moneys due to
the State so long as the said bank shall pay
gold and silver current coin for their notes;
but whenever there shall be protest on
any Of the bills or notes of the said bank
for nOn-payment of specie, the comptroller
general shall be authorized, and he is here
by required, to countermand the receipts Of
the bills and notes Of the said bank in pay
ment Of taxes or debts due to the State, I'M
less good and satisfactory cause shall be
shown him by the said corporation for pro-
testing in a court OF justice the payment
thereof. The charter of the remaining
bank was to the same effect, emitting the
direction to the comptroller general and
his action thereon. 1t is evident from
comparison Of these statutes: First, that as
to all the banks the statutory description of
their notes TO be received in payment Of
taxes referred TO the form of the
notes, viz: those expressed upon their
face to be payable in gold Or silver, aud
which are originally or by lapse Of time
had become payable on demand, and not to
the fact that specie was actually paid when
the notes were presented for payment; and,
secondly, that the Legislature intended to
provide that a different rule should be APP
piled to the two classes Of banks. In the
case of the banks chartered between 1901
and 1912 it was simply provided that their
bills should be received in payment of taxes
and other moneys due to the StatA In the
case of those chartered between the years
1881 and 1886, it was provided that their
bills should be thus receivable so long only
as they should pay gold and silver current
coin for their notes. The two classes of
bonds were thus confessedly placed upon
different basis, and so remained when the
act of 1913 was passed. To Justify this
court in holding that the act passed inthat
year repealed OF modified the sixteenth sec
ton of the charter of the bank in question,
it must appear that the latter provision is
and clearly in hostility to
the former. If by any reasonable |
the two statutes can
stand together, they must SO
stand. If harmony is impossible, and only
in that event, the former law is repealed in
mont nv. yvIOlI,r tho caca NAV no IDwar-