The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-01-09

Any assumption from the foregoing
views that the consolidation bonds ISSUED
under the act of 1873 are valid or invalid
in other respects would be gratuilSus
The propositions OH behalf Of the bond
holders, stated above. have not been con-
sidcrcd with any purpose Of their decis-
ion. The effect of the net Of 1873, the
acts of the State authorities. Tie ycstug
Of rights under acts of Assembly, though
afterwards opened for consideration, with
other questions in the interest of the
bondhodcrs, the constitutional point
made in the answers, want Of registra-
tion and the like, on behalf Of the deien-
dant, are all questions about which no
opinion is expressed.
There is Il class of cases, not many in
number, which have held the owners OF
municipal bonds which were subject to
exceptions entitled to certain payments.
These were instances where equitable
principles prevailing and the corpora
tions having received some value for
their securities negotiated, refunded to
the purchasers their money. The case
of the County OF Armstrong vs.. Brinton,
II Penn. r. 80, and others therein re-
ierred to, are examples. 4 suggestion is
scarcely venturcd if q settlement OF the
bonded debt could be thus effected. Yet,
if practicable, it should satisfy any one
but speculating bondholder, and at the
same time not be unjust to the State.
1t is ordered, adjudged and decreed :
That the Cancelled bonds, coupons and
certificates of stock" called vouchers" +"
in relation TO which conclusions have
been announced above in this opinion,
were not issued in accordance with law
and authorized to be consolidated under
the act of 1873. And that the consoli-
dated bonds and certificates of stock ex-
changed for said vouchers" to the ex-
tent and so far as the said consolidated
bonds and certificates of stock rest upon
said vouchers" for their validity, were
not binding obligations of the State Of
South Caroline.
THos. THOMSON.
/ concur in the result,
a. P. ALDRlcH.
December 10, 1878.
THE OPINION OF JUDGE ALDRlCA.
State of South Carolina, City of Colum-
bia.-C)urt of Caims.-F. j. Pelzer
and Others VS.. the State of South Caro-
lina.-Opinion: Aldrich, Judge.
Ny regular duties in the Circuit will
prevent me, at this time, from presenting
an extended opinion on the questions
submitted to us, by the joint resolution
creating the Court of Claims. l concur
in the conclusions reached by Judge
Thomson, and although his reasoning is
perfectly satisfactory to me, so far as it
goes, yet am disposed to go further and
hold that this whole legislation was so
gross fraud, on helpless people, that
it will be the greatest injustice to force
the innocent taxpayer to pay the debts
thus contracted by an usurping govern
ment, without the warrant of constitu-
tional authority, against which the tax-
payers loudly and earnestly protested,
and which so astoundcd the good faith OF
the commercial world that none but the
most reckless spectators would engage
in the disrcputable transaction to utterly
ruin a plundered State PROSTATE in the
hands of her invaders.
The opinion Of Judge Hudson shows
great research, and is prepared with care
aud ability, supposing these usurpers had
the legal and constitutional right ID i'm
pose these oppressive burdens, but us chat
lies at the very foundation OF the cues
tion submitted, 1 cannot acquiesce in it.
Reserving the right to file a more en-
tended opinion, L concur with Judge
Thomson. a. p. ALDRICH.
10Th December, 1878.