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

J. AVG
The last defence Of the State IL shat the acts
of the Legislature under which the various
classes OF surrendered vouchers were issued
were not passed by the constitutional tao
quircd In Article TX, sections ]. ~ and Il o
the Constitution, and that the Consolidation
Act, In SO far as 1t attempts TO make that q
debt which before was void, Is imperative be.
cause not passed by 4 two.thirds vote.
This contention IL res judicuta. The SUI
premc Court Of the State In Morton, Bliss &
60, W.. the Comptroller General. 4 =. G.. 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
Court holds that the several acts under which
the bonds we're Issued whibh have bssn sub
sequently consolidetea we're passed by ths
By competent authority. This Judgment Is
controlling. Rights Which have been acquir.
ed under the law OF that case cannot be d.
vested now by Its reversal. 1t would nyniithc
State nothing, so far AZ these Consolidation
bonds are concerned, to obtain a reversal OF
that case; because both tho State and bond.
holders have acted upon 1t as good law, and
have entered into q contract which Its rever-
The State issued various classes, Of bonds,
and throwing them upon the market, raised
money by their sale and hypothccatlon.
Upon these bonds the paid interest and the
money raised upon them went into the treas
ury, or should have gone there.
BY the Consolidation Act the State offered
an lnducemcnt little short OF compulsion TO
the bondholders to surrender them and re-
ceive well guaranteed bonds at half their full
yalucin exchange for those surrendered. Ac-
cordingly large surrenderS have been made,
and tile vouchers now lie cancelled in the
treasury. Now she seeks to repudinte the
new consols for alleged defects OF the ~concell-
ed vouchers, but makes no offer TO restore
the money she realized on these vouchers.
Her defence does not stand the test OF law.
With its policy the Court has nothing to
AS to the defence tina the Consolidation Act.
for want Of IL two-thirds vote, Is void In SO fur
as 1t creates a debt by making that an obliga
see the force of 1t. The act neither creates nor
pretend to create n debt. 1t IL from begin
ming to end Il proposed scheme OF settlement
and compromise OF the outstanding bond
purpose, viz reduce the volume OF the
public debt 1t needed not a two-thirds vote,
and was constitutionally enacted.
JURISDICTION OF THE U OF CLAIMS.
We have considered the question of the va
lidity Of the bond In suit, ash We were q court
having full power to consider and determine
The question referred to us. and the one we
are specially created to decide, is the validity
OF certain CLASSES Of Consolidation bonds, and not
Consolidation bonds generally.
The Interpretation OF the text OF the joint
resolution creating this Court by the majority
of it's members, Is, In my Judgment, a miscon.
ception.
its Jurisdiction Is defined In Section ! and 8.
and appears TO me to be free from ambiguity,
and too plain to admit Of debate. The two
sections, when read together, mean nothing
more nor less than that the Court Is created
to determine the validity, not Of Consolida-
of them reported to be invalid by the bond
Commission. Section l readi (which CourL
shall have Jurisdiction to hear AMI determine
any case or cases made up or brought TO test