The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1879-01-08

much there that Is purely hearsay9 we are
constrained TO say that we cannot adopt some
OF these conclusions. A court OF justice
ment upon hypothesis and conjectnres such
as are INDUCED In by the Commission.
We are constrained to say that the state
paoo a of the te a nntnash Sns t SSuls Nun these saelc cou.
pons; and as we have seen already, such is
the law that the facts, If established, would
avail her nothing. State OF California vs..
Wells, Fargo & Co, supra.
THE H~YPoTuECATED BONDS.
Objection 5 Is that q large number OF bonds,
financial agent after the time allowed by law.
After SIX months NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. by the
Bond Commission, with full. power 70 receive
and consider secondary evidence and helrsay
testimony, and with access. TO and liberty TO
use the reports OF previous investigating COM
mlttees, the strongest allegation when tne
is no evidence within the knowledge Of the
Commission that these bonds, or any OF them,
had ever been pledged within the Time
limited by law" In Its most liberia! con,
structiOn the evidence on this point adduced
by the State mounts to no more. and falls
short Of proof. But the State having alleged
that these bonds were not hfpothecatcu
within the lawful period, Is bound to prove
1t does not devolve upon the ~bondholders
to prove that they pcre pledged WITHIN the
time allowed, but II does devolve on the state
fore she can ask benefit from the allegation.
But suppose the facts were SO, was 1t not az
competent for the Legislature to rntify the
pledge AZ for that body by act to extend the
time In which TO effect a loan, as 1t did by en-
larging the time from twelve months to "
years And has not the h%ypothccatlon,
whatsoever made, been fully ratihed7
RETENTION OF GEE IN RATIFICATION.
The retention Of the loan or proceeds OF the
pledge Is the strongest act OF ratification; but
financinlugent, the Consolidation net, and the
action upon the charges against Cardozo, are
all acts OF ratification.
Does 1t lie In the mouth OF the state retain.
Ing the proceeds Of tho hypothecatlon to vet
up this defence7 We think not. But again,
these hypotheca,ed bonds could not be. or
were not. redeemed, and being sold under
holders for value without notice. Surely
against their claims the State was without
defence, as we have seen In the State OF ILL.,
noIs VS.. Delafield and other cases cited.
In exchange for which Consolidation bonds
were issued are q part Of the second Issue or
bonds under Act OF August 20, 1883, TO
nil of which second issue, the state alleges
were null and void, and should not have been
4 sufficient reply to this is that the Legis.
lature thought otherwise, and so said express
~ In the Act of December 2. 1873, In which
the whole OF the second issue then outstand-
Ing was directed TO be consolidated. But
looking Mt the act OF August rs. 1868, We see
that by its express terms the Governor was
authorized to borrow, on coupon bonds Of the
State, within twelve months from the passage
OF the act, one million Of dollars. The
the power is conferred to issue bonds until,
& ny ss5e sh Ss Ry Be 4aised. The e" act can admit
OF no other Interpretation than that bonds
..-tl no tee,o3 NIL unlt .ntil a million nj
dollars was realized, and Of course the mum
Der OF bonds necessary to this end would dc.
pend upon their market value.
The recital in the first million OF bonds
| which were issued under this act being calcu.
lated to impair their market value, q second
million was issued, with less prejLdiclal reel
tails, the object being to retire the mrs!
part OF the first Issue was thus retired, and
less Of both were left outstanding than wal
sufficient to raise n million OF dollars.
THE LAND COMMISSION.
The next objection Is against both issues o.
t..o Land Commission bonds, which the St,tt
alleges arc void. She has received the pro
recds uf these bonds, and proposes to retuir
the same, She next has, BY act December e
iS13, forced the holders H. surrender them
! and take Consolidation bO',ds In exchange
therefor at tli!y cents on the dollar; and nov
rrnyeIy contcIIds TINT these she IL not liablt
To- pay. because Of alleged infirnities IN TIT
The two grounds rpon which the surren
dered vouchers arc as,al! ead re So ,nn1 iss o0" a.
required by tina act, aud, second, THAT theS
were sold below par.
Both objcctionsare unavailfngto tIyalidat'
the original and Commission bonds, inucl
less to avoid the payment Of the bonds issue
In consolidation thereof.
It is further urged that the scheme or IN
ordinance OF the Convention OF 1871. provla
, Inc for a Land Commission. has not been pur
. sued by those charged with Its eXecstl3n
That ordinance was not binding on the Legs
: iuture. The Convention Of 1853 wes on eE'
} traordinary body. called IN an s1traoraiHa r
:. special purpose, viz to frame q constitution
az a basis OF reconstruct,ng tho state.
!, Beyond this special purpose IL cou Ts, no or gH
= nance Is legislative. and. never having peer
; submitted to, and ratified by n vote OF tn,
people, 1t acquired not the sanction OF a law
, but, Mt most, could only be regarded rs al
yisory. But the Constitution OF 1868 was st
ratified, and 80 became the fundamental Law
, OF the land. BY II alone the Legislature Is re
stricted. Its mandates ind inhibitions mus
be obcyed. The bonds were issued under IN
: act of the Legislature and not under TIT
! ordinance. The bonds. II Is true, wero no
, issued directly to the land commission, hu
by and with his concert IND the advice Of tn
!, the financial agent Of tho State 10 he nCgO
tiatcd for the benefit Of the IAnd Commission
Tho Land commissioner got the proceeds ant
invested Tile 6nUlG III lUllOs, w tuO uiSiiNH "
which atrocious frauds were doubtlese pcrpe
! tratCd on the State. But she took the titlci
to these lands. many tracts OF whlch sne no
sold to purchasers.
agemcnt OF this important matter, but theSt
: cannot avoid the bonds. Between tho State
, and her dishonest agents these matters mus
; be settled, and, II loss ihere be' IT, nnust ~
her bonds, who arc innocent OF the frauds
: practiced. All these Irregularities were wei
known to the States representatives befor'
the passage OF the consolidation act, II
Il Which all these outstanding Land Commits
sion bonds were directed u be consolidated
Behind that act the State cannot now he ad
.. mitted to so In her efforts " impeaeh thes'
.. bonds. II makes no difference that the orisl
: nal bonds may nave been sold below par
For this infirniity the old bonds, In the hands
Of innocent holders, could not hnve been I'm
peached, Uliinois vs.. Delntield. surd) aud sure
~ the Consolidation bonds cannot be.
REGISTRATION.
The next defence is that the various classe
Of bonds Issued under tho several acts abOv'
, enumerated. were put upon the market II
Violation OF Section L., Article X, Of thu
Constitution, which requires TINT - correc
registry of all such bonds shallbe kept 10y tn
treasurer In numerical order. so m always 4
: exhibit the number and amount unpaid. ant
, to whom Bercrally made payable This j
evidently q mode Of bookkeeping prescribed
= by the Constitution for the Convenience ant
/ Information OF the State officials, nnd ns
. check and safeguard against the mischief
!, that might result from less prccsution. Blu
Its observance or non observance cannot snt
should not infect the validity Of bonds issues
by the State. 1t Is q piece OF clerical worl
:. which must necessarily follow and not Pre-
( cede the act OF issuing bonds. With It TIT
+ b%ondholdcr has nothing to do, and should no
, be affected injuriously bya duty not his. ant
; over which he can have no control: ,...
fully sustained. The journals OF the treasury
do Show u registry Of these bonds In mos
part, though not In the exact method contein
plated by the Constitution, arising from thu
fpct that the bonds were not sold directly
from the treasurcr's office and to indivIdna
could and would have been kept. but they
were issued en- n,asse directly to the fnancin
agent, md to him they were churged In per
hups the only method practicable. Blu this
omission OF duty-irregularity-H such Il
can be called-is as well as oil other irrcgu
Iarities cured by tho Consolidation Act. 1t
Is not q defect going to avoid tho Consolida'
ton bonds.
TIE CoNSTITUTIONALITY Z VOID.
The last defence Of the State IL that the acts
of the Legislature under which the various
classes Of surrendered vouchers were issued
were not passed by the constitutions 40.
quirrd In Article TX, Sections ]. ~ and Il d
the Constitution, and that the Consolidation
Act. in SO far as 1t attempts TO make that Il
debt which before was void, Is imperative be.
cause not passed by = two.thirds vote.
This contention Ia res judicutd. The gu
Go, W.. the Comptroller General. i. c.. 49,
In Adril, 1873, before the Act, December 81,
1873. decided the first branch Of this PROPOSE
ton against the State. In That Judgment the