Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1873-09-05
SOUTH CAROLINA BONDS.
Decision BY the Stale supreme Court
The state Credit must be Sustained.
Synopsis OF Decision -Au Objections
OYerruled and the NaRdamus 80
Issue.

The full text Of the decision 81 the
supreme court Of South Carolina ia the
suit Of Morton, Bliss x Co., OF this city,
against the comBtroller-geDeral of south
Carolina, 10 compel him 20 levy tax
for the payment OF the interest Of sever
al classes Of bonds, has been received.
the decision is very lengthy, and covers
all the points OF the case IN detail. The
plaintiffs asked that 8 writ Of GldlldaBtuS
I be issued against the abOve-named de-
| fendant, as comptroller general Of the
State Of South Carolina, commanding
and requiring him TO give due notice on
or before the fifteenth day Of NOrem-
] Der, A. D. 1873, TO the county auditors,
respectively, Of the said state, Of the
rate OF percentage necessary TO be levied
upon the taxable properly within their
I respective counties, in order to
insure a sum sufficient TO pay
the interest already due and in
arrears Of the several bonds
set forth in the petition Of the relat0rs,
together with theinterest upon the same
{ that will become due on the first of July,
1873, and the first Of April and first Of
I October, in the year 1874 The ground
I upon which the relators placed their de-
| mand for the relief sought is, that by the
( constitution OF this State, and the sew
eral statutes passed In pursuance thereof,
under which the bonds in suit We're IS
sued, it is made the absolute duty OF the
respondent to take such steps as are aU-
Z thOrized by the statutes fixing the DOW
/ ers and duties Of his Office, in order to
cause tax to be levied on the taxable
{ property of the State, sufficient in
amount 10 pay the interest upon the
bonds Of the relators Of the five speci-
3 fed classes. The court ter a careful
+ review Of the case, granted the applica-
/ ton Of the plaintiffs on the following
! grounds: The constitution intended 70
I place the proceedings by which
means are TO be acquired for the
purpose Of paying interest on the public
( debt beyond the control Of the legisla-
I ture. The object Of this was obviously
I TO reduce the question of the payment
I Of interest on any public debt created
under the constitution 10 a mere execu-
I tive duty that might be compelled
/ through a remedy under the control Of
/ the bOndholder. In considering the cor
{ recuness Of the position just assumed, the
proposition presents itself that this pro-
. vision of the constitution was intended
mutually for the benefit of the State
and its bondholders. In framing enact
ments with 8 view to the borrowing Of
money, whether those enactments are
intended to form part Of the fundament-
al law, OF Of ordinary legislation, the
leading objects are, first, TO facilitate
such borrowing, and, second, to prevent
sbuses ofsueh power. Whatever there
is within the propositions made by the
borrower, looking to an increase Of Sc
curity on the part of the lender, must be
regarded IS part Of the inducement, and
if capable Of doing so, an entering into
the only essence of the contract. When
A asovereign State enters into a contract Of
borrowing with an Individual, it assumes
to be bound in all particulars as an in
dividu9l under Ike circumstances would
lie bound by what is meant or properly
implied by the terms Of such contract.
The measure Of its obligation is that ap-
piled to individuals. It is only in the
consequences that flow from breach Of
the contract that there Is a difference
between the case Of a State and an in
dividual. The individual can be sued,
the State cSunOt. When the authority
under which q contract Of borrowing is
made proceeds wholly from the legisla-
ture, the act and proceedings of that
BODY IN reference 10 lG entSE luLO anu
become part of such contract 1t follows
that where the powers Of the legislature
are limited and controlled by written
constitution, 50 as to become test OF
the validity Of the contract, the same
principle just applied as between the
legislature and its executive agent
must be applied between the constitu-
ton and the legislature. If the prOvi-
sions of the constitution can become, ,un-
der any circumstances, a test Of the va
lidity Of the contract, then it follows that
such provisions enter into the contract
and become part Of it. The court holds
that the object of the constitution was 10
iBereSse the credit Of the State by giving
lenders security for their money above
and bevond the control Of the Legislature.
To this end processes were open TO them
through the action of the executive
agents Of the Safe, the enforcement OF
which was made tl-,e duty Of the state;
The supreme court, thu CnSetore, overruied
all the objections, and orue.-sd Ihe wit
of maHddHUs 10 be issued as prsyeH Ior'