The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1873-03-20

remove the Attorney Generals objections,
- 600 OF which, found IT'S way INTO the ONCE
of the law firm OF Morris & BroHgher aud
into the pocket of his law. partner, notwith-
standing the fact thai Col. Falkner testilies
that he did not employ Mr.. Brougher De-
cause of his legal ability, and tedS only 10 Pay
him, if the warrants we're issued ms
transaction produces, and carries with IT,
"a grave suspicion and tdiHt, i'm reference "a
which we can only say, that, AS in the case 81
the $500 fee. it is another one of those remar-
kable condolences that is most unfortunate
for the reputation of one who Is the law
officer OF "A sovereign State.
The committee would particularly call at
tentiOn to the following prominent features
developed by the testimony. and submit To
the judgment of others the reconciliation Of
these seemingly contradictory ana lrrecoh-
cilable opinions.
The Attorney General asked Captain
Hardee, on page Is of Hardee's testimony,
whilst conducting this examination, the
following question:
do YOU NOT recollect that | stated thar
had grave doubts about the conscitutionality
OF the act ::
To which Hardee replied, "Nou did"
he then asked the witness. did not say
that the matter could be adiudicated at the
Treasurer's office well as the Auditors -
The answer was, You did lie then
asked him if - Mr.. Wicks, OF Memphis. did
not agree to take the warrants, or part of
them. and of his explaining TO them their
condition e To which Hardee replied, "lIe
was here. aud | think understood that you
reserved the right TO stop the payment OF
the warrants should you become fully con-
WINGED OF the unconstitutionality Of the acr,
but agreed Notwithstanding 10 take them.
These questions and answers were drawn
out by the Attorney General himself, and
summed up, in connection with other cir
cumstances and proof, amount TO this:
That pending the question of the Issuance
of the warrants, the Attorney General had
/ a written opinion in the estimation OF ju-
dicial officer that alidRsrerdble, in
which he held that the Subsidy Act was
unconstitutional. He then proved before
this Committee, that at the time the queS-
| ton WAS pending, that he had grave doubts
about the cOhstitutiOnality of the act. but
that he said the matter could be adiudicated
/ az the Treasurer's Office a well as the Au-
/ ditOrS ana moved the further fact thar lac
reserved the right To stop the payment OF
| the warrants, should he become convinced
OF the unconstitutiOnalityO of this ACT. Then
the plain inference that the Attorney Cen
eral desired To prove before the committee.
! by this witness, was that his mind was not
made up, but that inasmuch rs Wicks
agreed To take them after his, the Attorney
Generals explanation, that lie would per
NIT them Issued. but would reserve the right
To stop their payment aU the TreasuTer's
TO this explanation may be added the fact
that Notwithstanding his craze doubts, he
did not advise the Treasurer at all, though
he was bonded officer, and the amount in
controversy Hl.OUU. Inc foregoing. hOMcN
that II the testimony Ut Hardee-althOugh
proven at the Instance of the Attorney ten
eral, in answer to questions propOunded by
him, Il Hatly cOntradicted by another trit-
ness, Hae attorney General himself who
answers the following questions pro
pounded to him 10y the Committee.
Did you AT the time mentioned, that il,
when Falkner applied Tor the issuance Of
the warrants, reach the legal conclusion that
the act was unconstitutional =
Answer | did not, ! thought
the act itself was constitutional because f.
was only an appropriation and setting apart
rs IL said, OF money IN the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated This the Legi-la-
ture had right 10 do because &c holds the
purse strings OF the State and NAV apprO-
pirate money in aid of internal improve
ments; but if there be no money ia the
Treasury, or If there being money IN the
Treascry, warrants issued in aid of corpO-
TatiOns shall not be presented TOR payment
within a reasonable length OF time after
their Issuance. such warrants are dead be-
cause they impart on their face an Obliga-
ton TO pay, which is pledging the credit OF
the State in aid of corporations, &C., &c.
This opinion we will designate as "No.
3. with the simple remark that il is in
direct antagonism with aud contradiction
of the testimony of witnesses who testified
before this committee.
The warrants were issued by the Dcrnlis-
sion Of the attorney General about four weeks
after which time, the State Treasurer tele-
graphed the Attorney General, who was
then mt Aberdeen, Is follows:
JACKSON, Mss, October 81, 1872.
Hon. j. s.. Norris Aberdeen. Mss:
Am authorized TO receive the warrants
issued to the Ripley Railroad in payment
OF OtaUe uues' w. ii. NASSER,
State Treasurer.
REPLY.
ABERDEEN, Miss, October 81, 1873.
You are not authorized to receiUe or recog-
nice any warrant for Railroad Subsidy a.
the Ripley Railroad or any other that Sub
sidy being in nay opinion unconstitutional.
j. >. NORRIS,
Attorney General.
This we will designate rs opinion .No. |
T." with the remark that up to this date the /
divided, viz:
The written opinion to the Chairman OF
the Railroad Committee, No. the Act |
constitutional"
The written opinion. No. 2 made 10 Judge \
Anderson, and shown Col. Falkncr-'Cn- /
constitutional"
The opinion No. 3 sworn to bv the At
torney General as his opinion he held at the
time the appropriation for the warrants was
made--"Constitutional"
Opinion No. 4, given to Hon. w. H. Vas
ser, was that the Subsidy was "Uncoustitu-
tional;" the Ripley Railroad Subsidy OR
without modification or exception.
Opinion which we will here designate "A.
mo. D." written by the Attorney General
himself and submitted to your committee.
and herewith filed with the evidence, saws
After a thorough examination. I stlll
believe the act Udltd aud constitutional In all
its provisions. NJ opinion is that the Subsi-
dy Act contemplates the payment of the
money in cash which it apprODriates and
that it does not contemplate the Issuance of
far ut
ley Railroad Company having as il appeared
with all the terms of the Subsidy
Act aud having done 50 within the time
provided was entitled 10 have their voucher
audited and warrants issued. They were
also entitled 10 draw their money from tha
proprated for that purpose should be on |
hand. SO far the whole transaction wouId
have been gift or donation comDletclv ex |
ecuted by a delivery of the money given.
but if the Treasury should be empty. ma !
warrants being for that reason unpaid were e.
worthless because they import pledge Of =
the States credit i'm aid Of a corporatiou. !
4ndth is prohibited aud so advised the y
state treasurer. Ihe State WarraL T. ia this =
ease could not be enforced as obligations To y
pay money. No court would enforce them ,
because of the prohibition contained in Sec. \
OF Article II Of the State Constitution. y
w arrants issued in aid of any person. assoc
cation or corporation II not proven nudity, ,
because otherwise the faith of the State u
would be pledged for their redemption" u
This opinion mo. o. together with all the y
surroundings at the time the warrants were =
ssued and the present peculiar circumstan- y
:es which have called it forth. renders IL
most remarkable and astounding.
The Attorney General says: But il the
treasury should be empty, the warrants
being for that reason unpaid were worthless II
because they import pledge of the States
,redit in aid of a corporation. aud this Is 4,
OntDlfa1. / IN "a vi 10 ]