The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1874-08-29

Legislative expens $7l2.240 13
Fuuic printin5...... 2l0, - 81
- $o27,37o 20
The figures CT the last table, that of 1872,
will show something of what it cost the pco
pie Of The state to secure the nomination of
F. J. Moses rs governor. lie then repre-
senicd, as he now does, the most rcckle ss
and tho most dishonest element in the re-
publican parry. But those figures, start
ling as ihcy are, do not represent tho whole
cost Of this man. There were legislative
certificate es and trcasurcr's notes issued in
lieu of them amounting to over $i90,0)0,
which were not then paid, many of them
still part Of the floating d,hi of the state.
BY his conniyancc the regulation requir-
ing the signature of the governor to dr., #
upon The treasurer was repealed, and each
Of the certificates became an o;drr upon the
treasurer, payable at sight
The taxes for the year ending October 81 :,
1872, amounted to only sl,2tS, ,662.O5, while
the demands of the pay certificate maker
and the printing ring alone amounted tc
more than 81, T,:7929.
In order to meet the unsuitable demands
in these forms, and 10 pay the cur, cut ex-
penses of the other depart nlcnts, tn .rc was
no other resource than the issu, anil sale of
bonds. NJ M'ses anl his suppolte- had Ia ken
all raised from taxes; no new taxes could be
,si,y.
He points out in his Sumner speech the
fact that the Legislative expanscs Of the last
year OF his administration decreased from
$3.50, ,oSl 80 to S202. 4OG. 80. lie should
have carried his comparison little further
back. Both years fogeihs.' do not equal 5y a
hrd .hc r1pcnses Of one yrdr under the SPEAKER
,h:p of F. j. Noses.
At the beg 'nnins of the session Of 1S7I-72
it became known that what is called an
over issue of bonds had been made. The
bonds in question, were conversion bonds
which had hopothecntcd mainly to raise
money to meet the enormous demands shown
above.
In his Sumter speech tho governor de-
uounces the conduct Of those who so used
the bonds and utterly rcnounces the idea Of
paying one Of them. But what was his &C.
ton at time when he could have preven-
ted the endorsement of those very acs by a
legislature in which he was allpowerful
Let us see. Those interested in the bonds
in question wished oil doubts SET ut rest.
The officers who perfected them, and those
who issued them wanted the sanction Of he
legislature to their ac,s. The financial
accounts The bond holders very naturally
desired to be made secure in what they had
purchased.
Two bills were introduced TO accomplish
these ends. One has been known as the
validating bill, and the other rs the
settlement bill. The first waste relieve the
officers who perfected The bonds and those
who issued them, rs we'll rs 10 assure the
holders that they were n perfectly good
evidence of Indebtedness on the part Of the
State. The second squared The accounts of
tho financial agent, and accepted his settle.
ment. To show how clearly tho matter was
understood, it is needful only to read the
preamble of the validating act:
Gan act to authorize the financial agont
of the State of South Carolina in the city o f
New York to pledge State bonds rs collate-
al security and for other purposes, approx
ed March &c, 1869, which said bonds are
fully and particularly stated and oct forth
in report made by the treasurcr of the
State to the general assembly, dated Ooto-
ber 81, 1871; and rkereas doubts have ari-
sen whether said issues were in strict con
formity to the provisions Of the said several
acts under which they wero respectively
issued and mhereas it was the true in,snt and
meaning of the several acts above set for III
that such issues Of bonds or obligations
should be made in the manner in
which the same have been made, rs
nforosaid and rhereas also, doubts have
been raised rs to the validity Of some Of the
bonds mentioned i'll the said annual repor I