Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1873-02-27
From the Columbia Union, 22nd inst.
MANDAMUS AT CHAMBERS.
AN IMPORTANT ARGUMENT BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.

AN IMPORTANT ARGUMENT BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
The case of R. c. Shiver, petitioner, for a
mandamus against the State Treasurer, to
compel him to pay warrant issued by the
ex-Comptroller General to the Superintendent
of the penitentiary for the sum of $4,000, was
heard before Judge R. B. Carpenter, sitting
in chambers, on Thursday last. 1t is an in
teresting one, and promises to develop some
new principles of law not yet generally recog-
nized.
The following are the points in the case
Last summer the Comptroller General issued
twelve warrants at one time of $4,000 each.
Six of these warrants were paid by the Treas
urer.
The remaining six were deposited as colat-
erals with Governor Scott for $4,000, less
ninety days interest at one and one.half per
cent. per month. Besides these collaterals Gen.
Stolbrand gave his individual note, Gov.
Scott refusing to take his note as Supernten-
dent. AS soon as General Stolbrand obtain
ed any money of the Treasurer, this winter he
rendered the $4,000, and demanded his note
and the collaterals. Governor Scott said the
note was paid by Mr.. Baldwin, he having
received three of the warrants for the same,
and Governor Scott refused to give up the re-
naming three, amounting to S15,0 900, claiming
that they had passed out of his possession.
One of the warrants has turned up in the
possession of Mr.. R. c. Shiver, and he brings
a suit of mandamus against the Treasurer to
compel payment, General Stolbrand having
stopped the payment of the three last named
at the treasury.
At the hearing, Attorney General Melton
appeared for State Treasurer Cardozo The
first point he made was as to the law in refer
ence to the payment of appropriations, that
money collected this year could not be paid
out on old accounts. His further remarks, as
reported in the Erening Herald, were as fol-
lows:
The Attorney General took occasion to say
that in every instance where the State Treasu-
rer or county treasurers have in violation of
the provisions Of the constitution, devoted
funds in their hands from the purposes for
which they were levied, he should hold them
responsible under their official bonds and
make them answerable before the courts, both
civil and criminal.
But even if the treasury were in funds to
meet this warrant, the Attorney General ar
pued with great earnestness that the warrant
can only be paid at the counter of the treasu-
ry upon the presentation Of it by the super
intendent himself, or his authorized agent
that when the warrant is issued, for instance,
to pay the salary of an officer it becomes the
property of the officer, and he may possibly
dispose of it Oh the market; but when a war
rant is issued to public officer authorizing
him to draw money from the treasury to ex-
pend for public purposes, he acquires no owner
ship or property in the paper; he has merely
the possession of it for the purposes designed,
and can neither sell, negotiate, pledge nor dis
pose of it in any other manner whatsoever.
1t is, in no event commercial paper. 1t is
neither negotiable nor assignable, and becomes
unavailable and worthless whenever it goes
from the hands of the officer who alone is au.
thorzed to use it. 1t is a mere certificate
naked without, in itself, any
energy, except to authorize the treasurer to
pay It, and that only to the officer whose ap,
pointed duty it is to receive and expend it.
1t is paper affecting funds held in trust tor
the State, and it is given to the officerin trust
and whenever he parts with it in any other
way that that which the law contemplates, ne
is guilty of a breach of trust, technical en-
bezzlement of the public property, which only
wants, perhaps, the element of fraudulent In
tent to constitute it one of the highest crimes
known to the law.