The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1873-01-09


solomon L. !iose, Comptroller General Of
San.b Caroline. in return to 4 rule 10 'h9F
cause why 4 writ Of maudamus. should d'.h''
Issue commanding him to give notice OF a
tax of three mills on the dollar Of the assess
cd value of property Of this-St"te for the re;
demption of the Treasury certificates known
rs the Revenue Bond Scrip, said rule hav-
inc been issued by certain parties who own
the scrip has, by Samuel W, Melton, Attor-
nsy General, and c. G. Memminger, Esq.
set forth ten grounds of answer. among
the most important of which are, in brief;
/. That no portion of the scrip srequlred
to be retired until after twelve months from
the date of the Act, March 2, 1872, and
hence. no suit can be brought by a private
party until that time, and if any public
wrong has been done, it can only be reme-
died at the suit of the Governor, Attorney
General. or some officer of the Executive
Department.
,. Tha. no demand has ever been made
upon the respondent (Nir. Hoge) requiring
notice to be given'o the tax for tho re-
demption of the scrip.
3. That the Legislature was induced by
false representations to pass the bill giving
authority for the issue. Of the scrip, IN that
they were made to believe that the statehad
become liable for the amount of her en-
dorsement, whereas the'fact was otherwise
GCredu7ous LcgJiisIat'ue.7EI] -. ,.a, a..
{. That .theact authorizing the issue ID
the scrip is. unconstitutional. null and void
beisg repnerant. to the State Constitution in
three particulars l1st Becadse,ths scripwas
not issued for The. redemption of bonds OF
o.ler indebtedness or for any Otheridebts n'
are autlurzed by 5sid'oons;itntion I'd BE
cause. rene of the sefip been mad? ..
issued in .ho f5rm OF payable y ,tbefgm(
and inaniuer 'PrlosgriteA jSy the constitution
3rd. because the scrip was not. -Rs ue'i' tt
defray extraordinary expenses; nor By th'
authority Of the,peopl2- ''
9TH Tbrt1 tle Ne Is .repqgaaant to, thP
constitution Of the ruited S4stes, which
ordains that no State shall emit bills o
credit or make any thing but gold ahi silver
coin. tender in payment Of debt, and
therefore is nrtl and void
9Th. That because the said Act:is dc
signed to carry into cisset what is uncon
sttutional AMI void and especially The claus,
relating to the levy Of the tax, the les
pendent has no duty imposed upon hin
WHICH can be enforced by writs of mandaunu
OF otherwise. -E
7th. Because the respondent, having takeI
his oath of office to protect and defend thu
Constitution, &c, &C. cannot be required tt
violate that oath or constitutiQn.--
s,h. Because the annual tax levy has al
ready been made and none other can bt
made during this fiscal year.
9th. Because the courts Of the State hav
inc pronounced the said Act null and void
ii would be unlawful for respondent to dt
what is desired Of him.
1t would seem as if the Comptroller was
in earnest in his resistance to this tax levy
but the entire government is 50 unstable and
uncertain, that no man can say what he ol
any other person connected with it will do
The respondents case is strong one. Ii
was heard on Tuesday, but We have not yet
heard of the result. The court will probably
reserve its decision.