The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1873-01-10
Tho Scrip Cass.

ID6 RrSumenL upon tn6 Due HlOBe
scrip case commenced yesterday in ear.
neat. The Court declined to grant the
motion OF the Attorney. General. to as-
certain the facts by means Of jury, but
ordered that issue should be joined upon
the faats as stated in the return, where
not traversed. Mr.. Chamberlain made
an elaborate argument on the side of the
relators, the chief points OF which We
present to our readers:
Mr. Chamberlain said that the appro.
priateness OF the remedy by mandamus,
the right OF the reiators to demand it,
and that the respondent is the proper
officer to be compelled, are not ques-
toned. So much is conceded at the
outset. But the respondent sets up GER
tain defenocs, which it is necessary to
examine.
l. He says that the redemption of the
scrip cannot take place until one year
has elapsed. Our answer is, that we are
not now seeking the payment of the
scrip, but only the levy and collection of
tax to pay it. This is the duty of the
OomptrollerG General, not of the Trea-
surer. In order to enable the Treasurer
to perform his duty, the tax must be
levied. This duty is, indeed, public
duty, but it is none the less duty which
these relators may demand. Any person
interested in the discharge OF a public
duty may ask this remedy. IF public
officer may neglect his duty until de-
mand is made upon him, we have no
assurance that any public duty will ever
be performed. Moses on 1fandamus,
126, 127; Commonwealth ps. Commis-
sioners. 80 Penn, 223, and cases there
cited.
2. If the Blue Ridge Railroad did, as
the respondent alleges, falsely represent
10 the General Assembly that the COM
paRy had complied with tho require
ments Of the Act of September 15, 1868,
it is not material, since, as matter of
law; those conditions had been previous
Tyr epealediby the Act of March 6. 1871,
commonly called the "Consolidation
Act"
That latter ACT had been attacked as
repugnant to the twentieth section of
Article II of the State Constitution. He
showed that this Act was in strict har-
mony with that provision Of the Consti-
.ntion. It was an Act to promote consoli-
dation, not to consolidate absolutely; and
hence all its provisions we're germane to
the object sought to be accomplished.
He dwelt upon this matter. and ohal-
lenged the counsel to point out the spe.
oial points in which this ACT violated the
Constitution.
8. The real and leading consideration
in the minds OF the General Assembly,
to induce them to pass this Act. was, as
the Aot itself sets forth, the recovery
~ lAaR~ -
bonds. This consideration was fully re-
ceived by the State, and the pretence
that the consideration had failed was
wholly unfounded. The validity of the
bonds might be doubtful, or, indeed,
their invalidity might be conceded, still
their injury to the credit of the State
was plain and palpable, and it's removal
was good and valuable consideration,
sufficient to support this contract. The
prevention OF litigation was a valuable
consideration, irrespective of the validity
of the claim itself. The claim put forth
by the respondent, that the State ought
to be permitted to make her defence
against this scrip in another tribunal,
was merely pretensive. Any defence
could now be set up as we'll as hereafter
or elsewhere.
4. Mr.. Chamberlain next entered upon
an elaborate examination Of the 7th,
10Th and 14th Sections of Article 8 Of
the State Constitution. The 7th SEQ
tion was not a Limitation in the power Of
the State to contract dobts in general,
but only a Limitation upon the mode in
which debts for the defraying extraordi-
nary expenditures may be contracted.
The 10th Section was grant of power
to issue scrip, &C., for the redemption Of
stock, bonds and other evidences of in
debtedness previously issued, sc. He
said the words previously issued" were
sometimes Construed to mean prior to
the adoption of this Constitution; but
the word previously" did not admit of
SUCH a meaning. 1t must mean. at any
time prior to the time Of issuing the
scrip in question.
The Court here interrupted Mr.. Cham
berlain with the remark that he need not
argue that point further.
Mr.. @. then passed to the 14th Sec
tion, which declared that any debt con-
tracted by the Stote shall be upon State
funds. This section. he said, could not
be construed to mean that no other
State debt could exist except in the one
form OF State bonds. This would make
the 10th Section without meaning. Such