The Van Buren press., 1874-03-10

A correspondent from Nevada county
wants to know il State Scrip is receivable
in paymsnt of bonds issued by the Coun
ty TO erect public buildings The Sn
preme Court ia the case OF English VS.
Oliver, SAYS that if the bonds were issued
b.fors 18th Of March. 1871, that State
Scrip is not receivable, but if the bonds
were issued aincs the 18th Of March,
1871, that Ills rscsirable. Our CORE.
spondent has not advised us Of the dale
Of the bonds issued by his County, but
he can tell from what we have stated
whether the scrip is receivable by ascer-
taining the date Of the bonds.
We clip the above from the Little
Rock Republican of the 4th inst We
must confess that if the qucrist, referred
to in the article, cannot gather more in
formation than We can, from tho answer
to his query, he is in no better condition
than before he asked his question. We
have no respect, particularly, for the
soundness Of the famous scrip decision,
anyhow, but as it is the announcement
Of the law in the case, OF course it be-
comes us to submit, and also to ascer'
tain. il such thing is at all possible,
what the learned Judges meant to decide.
They say, i" Bona .fde holders Of County
Bonds, issued in pursuance Of the act OF
March %, 1871. are of this class and
cannot be compelled to accept Treasnr'
er's Certificates, issued after the passage
of that act, nor could The Counties he
compelled TO accept such scrip Tor The
taxes levied for such purposes, because
such change in payment, even ifattempt-
ed by the State, would be Intellectual,
etc. The words, " County Bonds, " used
here, includes OF course all bonds, whether
Funding Rands or bonds issued for pay
mcnt of Indebtedness incurred IN the
erection Of public buildings. But in
another part Of the decision, the Court
say, speaking OF the scrip acts of 1869
and March l6, 1871, 1--WE, therefore,
hold, in the language OF the law, that
said Trcasurcr's Certificates are receiv
able in payment for all State, County
school and municipal .axes, and all debts
due the State, whaterT. This includes
all County taxes for
County building. purposes. But the
Couri did not dare to fly in the face OF
tho provision Of the Federal Constitution,
prohibiting the impairisg OF the obliga'
tions of contracts. So, if County or
Town choose TO make the contract in
their bonds, to pay interest and principal
in currency. the same must be so paid.
This decision does not help the County
or Town in such cases. They must per
form their contracts, whether that con
tract was made before or after any legs.
lative act. SO the Nevada county man
had better look not only at the date Of
the bonds, but to the terms Of the contract
The ottener We try to apply the ruling
contained in this remarkable opinion, the
clearer appears the vital objection to its
soundness, to.wit: that it makes State
Scrip" bills Of credit. !" 1t is too often
she case, that we confound the constitu.
tional prohibition. denying to the States
the power or right to issue "bills OF
credit" with the other prohibiting the
making Of anything but gold and silver
coin legal tender. Bills of credit need
not necessarily be legal tender for all
purposes: Il the evidences Of indebted.
ness, Issued by the State, are, by the Le,,
islatnre, made receivable for sny purpose,
they become At once bills Of credit They
are issued upon the faith Of the State
alone, and fall fully and entirely within
the prohibition. This was fully settled
in the case Of Craig Us. Xissouri. and al.
though the United States Supreme Court
modified that opinion, In a later case from
Kentucky, that portion Of it asserting the
nature Of bills Of credit, has not been as
sailed and cannot be successfully. The
home ease OF Fa'ton vs State Baak. ia a
poor authority for the advocates Of the
soundncss Of Eng'ish rs Oliper. In that
case, the Court almost. in so many words,
servilely followed the Kcntucky case.
while they confessed a disbelief in its
soundncss and preferred the Craig case.
crrh TT TsVYA NCr