The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1873-01-08

antnori2eds and issued; and they haye
already shewn that the respondent, by
his failure to deny their statement. that
the consideration has been received by
the State. is in law full admission that
the consideration had not isiled, md he
is bound thereby.
| And, iurthor, that upon the issue OF
the bonds, for the recovery and destruc.
ton OF which the said revenue bond
scrip was issued, a preliminary injuuc-
ton against the endorsement of said
bonds was sought and obtained, but
upon Toll hearing before Hon. 8. W..
Melton, Judge OF the Fifth Judicisl Orr
QUIT, the said Injunction was dissolved.
and the additional security of judicial
decision was thus given to the Act Of the
Legislature. and the highest sanction to
the bonds, the delivery of which to the
State makes the consideration of the pre.
sent scrip.
Tho REALTORS are not aware that the re-
spondent is the chief fiscal officer of the
State; and even il his Office has assumed
such extraordinary precedence, they are
not aware 9! what duty Of his Office re-.
quires him to interpose his own con.
struotion of an Act of the Legislature
between the recognized liability of the
state and the payment Of its creditors,
thus driving those who trusted it's
pledges to the expense and delay of n
costly and dilatory suit, aud endaneering
the credit of the State itself.
Nv. And for reply to the fourth
cause. and set forth in said return, these
relators say:
That the said Act of March 2, 1872. is
not unconstitutional nor void by reason
OF anything set forth or alleged in said
| fourth cause in said return contained.
but that, on the contrary, the said scrip
IL issued under tho express authority
conferred by the Constitution of the
State upon the General Assembly.
Y. And for reply to tile fifth cause set
forth In said return, these relators say:
That the said Act OF March 2, 1872, is
not ropugnant to the Constitution of the
United States, which ordains that "no
State shall emit bills of credit or mako
anything but gold and silver coin ten
der IN pay nent of debts"
VI. And for reply to the sixth cause
set forth IN said return, these REALTORS
say:
That the said Act of March 2, 1872,
evinces no design to effect what is de-
olared unconstitutional By the State or
Federal authorities; that the levy of the
said tax of three mills was designed in
good faith to protect the rights of those
who should become, like these REALTORS,
the owners and holders OF said scrip; and
that whether said scrip be lawful or not
or whether said scrip be receivable for
taxes or not, cannot affect the right of
these REALTORS, who are. owners and
holders thereof for good and valuable
consideration, to claim its redemption in
a0nnFHQ n cvif RI, III e
the Aot of March 2, 1872; but that. on
the contrary, the fourth section imposes
| upon this respondent the dnty of levy
ing the said tax of three mills, irrespec.
tive of the question of the validity, or
legality, or constitutionality of the said
scrip, In respect to its issue, its original
purpose, its receivability for ta1es, or its
re'issue in payment OF dnes from tho
State
VII. Aud for reply to the seventh
cause set forth in said return, these re-
| lators say:
That these REALTORS do not seek to re-
quire or compel the performance by this
respondent Of any act inconsistent with
either the Constitution of this State or
OF the United States, nor in conflict with
his oath Of Office as Comptroller Gene
raj. but that, on the contrary, they seek
ouly to compel the performances Of n
duty which, by his said oath of Office, he
is required to perform.
VIII. Aud for reply to the eighth
cause set forth in said return, these re-
lators say:
That this respondent cannot in law be
excused from the performance Of his
duty in this behalf, because, by his
wrongful neglect and refusal to perform
his duty, tho annual taxes had been
levied previous to tho service OF the rule
herein; that such an excuse, if allowed,
would put the rights of these REALTORS at
the constant mercy of this respondent,
since it could never be charged that he
was neglecting his duty in these pre-.
misses until he had suffered the time to
pass by when the regular annual taxes
OF the State are levied; that if this Court
shall award the relief herein sought, the
respondent can, without delay or legal
impediment. proceed to give the proper
notice Of said tax. and cause the same to
be duly collected.
TX. And for roply to the niuth cause
set forth in said return, these relators
say:
That it is not unlawful for the re.
spondent to levy the said tax because OF