The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1873-06-14
S. G.
Saturday Morning, June Ia. 1878.
Tho Case of the Bonds.


Chamberlain resumed and finished the
reading Of his argument. It is an elabo.
rate paper OF over seventy pages. It is
ingenious. plausible and learned, but as
we think. being on the wrong side, failed
to carry conviction. It was our purpose
to give full analysis of it, but circur,-
stances prevent. In maintaining the
dusJ Of the court 70 issue The H:zi;t:saass.s,
he denied that the duties, which would
thus be devolved upon the Comptroller,
involve the exercise of discretion or
Judgment, in any. degree. His. whole
duty would consist simply in ascertain
ing, from the. public records of the
State, the. number Of the bonds out
standing, for the payment OF interest on
which tax ia authorized. No evidence
ia to be recciyed. and weighed; nothing
in the nature OF iadisiai1discretion is
called into exefcise. Il is from hrst to
last mere arithmetioal computation.
In reply to the objections OF the re.
spondent to the constitutional validity
of several Acts on. which the REALTORS
rely, he made q distinction between
vote OF two-thirds Of all the members
elected and qualified, and a: vote OF two.
thirds OF quorum, and urged that the
latter vote-that is, two-thirds of a ma.
jority OF the members elected and quail.
had-is compliance with the Coustitu-
.sion upon the passage OF Acts requiring
.'the vote of two thirds Of the members
Of each branch ,of the General. Assem-.
bly," as expressed in the Constitution OF
South CAROLINA. he argued, too, that
the position Of The responder in oharg.
ing that part Of the public debt of the
State. vaguely stated as at least 81, 191,.
700, is not valid debt of the State.
was untenable. because he ie bound to
use his present means and facilities for
ssoertaining the amount Of bonds on
which interest is due, &c., &c., and he
nowhere AYERS that he has attempted to
do this duty.
Attorney General Melton followed in
reply. he contended that the statutes
levying taxes upon the citizens OF
State are to be very strictly construed,
end in their favor. It is necessary for
the protection Of their rights that the
amount of levy. the subject of it and the
the method of raising it, be all accurately
defined. He dwelt forcibly upon the
principle OF law, that the grant OF par
ticular power is the excluaion and reser-
vation of sll others. A statute imposing
tax must invariably give the rate per
cent. This has been the uhyalying prac-
t;oe in this Stale throughout it's whole
history, the only exception being in
1868. when the new government had
just gone into power, under circum-
stances which. perhaps, suggested this
course as temporary expedisnt. AS to
the particular duty now sought to be dc.
volved upon the Comptroller, the Leeis.
lature, :.t the last session, had shown it's
animus upon the subject BY voting down
proposition to fix a rate and levy tax.
a bill also originated in the Senate, aud
was passed in both branches by over
whelmihg majorities. which proposed to
repeal that portion OF the Tax ACT which
provides that the Comptroller shall give
notice of the rate per centum of taxes
before the 18th OF November. It was
mysteriously lost, and never reached the
Governor for signature. The expression
of the will OF the Legislature was thus
fraudulently defeated, but not the less
certainly manifested.
Authorities were next quoted to show
the scope and extent of mantidmus, and
how inapplicable it is in the present
case. In opposition to the view of the
opposing council, he insisted that the
Comptroller, the respondent, was unau-
thorized in law and incapable in fact to
perform the dnty demanded. His was
only ministerial Office, which was pre-
cise and definite. and which necessarily
excludes the exercise Of his own discre-
ton and Judgment. The practical diff
culties are insuperable. He could not