The Fairfield herald. [volume] (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1849-1876, 1873-06-11
The Boud Interest CnSc.

raj 1ioCgc.
First. l,t. That it is not true thIt
tho authority to ascertain tlio rate 5f
taxation is delegated to the General
Assembly and not to the Comptroller
General. That the Constitution
nowhere delegates this snlc "amthority
to the General Assembly, to FIX t,c
rate, nnd Tint this duty has hereto.
foro been performed by the State Au.
dllor, and now "ppertait:s to the Office
of tho resp pohdcnt. The Legislature
might dcs;gnute T. specific rate, but
not having done 30, the 'reapon.'
dent is nmcnablc to the law for not
having done it.
2. That tho fact that tho J,cpislo-
ture has not fixed the specific rdtc
on these bonds, or for tho various
State purposes on or before Novem.
Der next, is insufficient to justify the
respondent in, refusing to give notice
of tho necessary ratio.
3. That tho respondent has, at all
times, data for determining the rate
necessary that tho Constitution
requires Il registry to bo kept Of those
bonds, and if any Of those bonds havo
been returned and redeemed this fact
will be disclo. cd upon examination,
which examination hc is bound to
make and that tho excuse of res.
rondcnt that he is without tho data
tor the performance Of the 'd.rty do
manded is insufficient.
4. That if notice has been given by
>reTpondcnt of certain rates necessary
Tor the expenses Of the present fiscal
year, 1T Is not true that he has no au.
thority to give notice Of any other
rates but If tho rates necessary for
payment Of "imcrst on these bonds
wero not levied, it is now tho duty
OF respondent to give notice as re
Hnircd by the reldtors.
D. That since tho RESPONDENT has
refused to give notice Of this rate,
tho REALTORS arc entitled to ask aid Of
the Court by mandamus.
Second. That tho order Of tho
Court will not Ec nugatory by reason
Of the second cause of rcspondont.
chat if tho Court order respondent
TO give notice and tho tax bo levied,
the Court will presume that rcs,co.
two officers will. perform their res
ptctivc duties. That tho Court will
make 10 ordor regarding moncy so
collected, unless it appear that some
oilioor is withholding payment thereof.
2. That thc bonds we're issued in
conformity to the Constitution that
n contract thereby arose between
tho State and the bond holders and
II the. government have attempted to
alter or vary tho contract without
consent of tho bondholders, such not
Is unconstitutional, and tho rolators
cannot % compelled to register their
ponds before receiving payment thero.
'or but arc entitled to payment
whether or not they register.
Third. lst. That thoy are not in.
formed whothcr tho bonds were hy-
Pothecatcd contrary to law or not ::
put that such statement is ,insu4Ii
Gent Tor vagueness. That by nct of
Legislature said bonds have been
declared lawfuls that the l.egisla-
turo had power to waivo any irregu.
larlty in tho sale or manner Of issue
Of said bonds.
"a. That respondents allegation,
upon hcarsay, that tho bonds have
becn returned and rc. issued is insult.
hclent to justify tho refusal of ro.
spondcnt to perform, he duty demand
cd, because the registry is accessible
TO him, and if bonds have boen re-.
deemed, this will appear by con.
tuitlng the registry. Then only can
respondent rofuso to levy tux to pay
this interest.
bour'h. lst. That the act of Febru.
any AZ, 1850, ia valid it WAS pass ID
by u two.thirds majority.
I'd. That said act lcvies n tax sufli-
cient TO pay interest on tho bonds
therein authorized.
Fifth. That there is no established
practice OF mandamus in thia State.
by which the writ will not be allowed
until Judgment bc obtained. That
tho WIT will ko allowed whenever
tIere IS hight to demand tho pcr.
formancc Of duty. That by mas.
sage of said act, this duty devolycd
on tho respondent:
Sixth. That tho court in ordsr;o,
the payment of this interest will not
necessarily order tax to nav tho
interest on tho whole dobt, bGoatso
as to a large portion of that debt
there is no law requiring the levy of
q tax.
Seventh. That they aro not inform.
ed as to tho correctness of the allepa.
uon as to tho public debt mado in
the fevcnth cause. That tho court
should inquire into tho validity of
these bonds only, and tho respondent
should charge thcil illegality only
after due iuspc cction and nut merely
on information.
=, Eighth. That this court hns no
cohocrn with the general condition
Of the public debt, or with any ar
engagements made for registration.