The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1879-10-08

case or Morton, Bliss q 20. VI. Coipptroiier'
General, and it is not necessary to repeat here
whnt we have already said In regard to the
effect Of the decision. 1nasmuch, however, as
seems to be one of the principal grounds
of objection to that decision, we may ADD tbat
It is not without 1t, the no supp9sE ss q c0 gsry I % c sss
VS.. Johnston, G5 US. Rep, $50.
The next Act, the onstitutionality OF
which is called in question, san Actto au-
thOrize q State loan to pay interest," on the
Stat, 10. This Act Is assailed upon the first
and second grounds upon which the foregoing
Act was attacked, and 1t Is not deemed neces.
sary to add anything to what we have SAID
above, except to gay that while ctrrcn ihteT,
within the class Of ''ordindry" expenses, yet
the interest provided form this Act not being
the current interest 1t cannot pc placed ID
class OF 'eztraordina,y expenditures" for y
will be remembered thnt while provision NAG
been made by the Act or september q, lSGt,
(3 Stat, 80l.) rs supplemental by the Act OF
the interest on the public debt up to July. l,
1887, there would be no provision for the IN.
terest which accrued from July /, 1867, 10
November l, 1850, the beginning or the nrst
fiscal year OF the governments as then reorgan'
lied, unless the Act which we are now consid'
cring be regarded as intended to provide for
such interest. It is n mistake to suppose
that provision was mad. by taxation ior
such interest by the APT Sbpriation Act o.
March %, 1863, "a stat, 261 ior mat Ac,
appropriations for the year commencing In Oc.
tober, 1868, and hence no appropriation made
by that Act could be regarded as made for the
payment of interest accrued prior to october
Section 7 OF that Act-"For the payment OF
the interest on the public debt accrued since
the same was last funded, five hundre thou
sand administrators that such appropriation
was not designed to pay
INTEREST ACCRUED PRIOR
to October. 1888. The interest was first fund
eddy the Acts Of 1886, above cited-uI
to July j, 1861; then the interest which
accrued between July !, 1867, and the LIST OF
November, 1868, the commencement OF the
first fiscal year OF the reorganized state gov
ernment, was provided for by the Act now
under consideration. and must be regarded o.
the last funding Of interest; and the interesl
for the year commencing In October. isJS, Is
provided for by the Appropriation ACT o.
March q, 1859, above cited while by the Aci
of March /, 1870, QiStat., 3S2,) an appropria
ton is made to pay the interest on the public
debt for the year commencing November J.
1869. and so on, from year to year as long a.
the General Assembly saw tit 10 provide FOL
the payment Of interest on the public DEBT
Nor can any argument be drawn from the
fact that the amount authorized TO be raised
by the Act now under consideration largely
exceeded the estimdte presented by tne comp
trollar-General at the beginning OF tne resu
lar session Of 1859 Of the amount OF lnteresl
due on the drstof October, 1868, for that wa!
only an estimate. and 1t might very well have
been supposed hat such estimate. made 81
soon after the reorganization OF the Stat'
government by an officer who had had nopre
Vious acquaintance with the operations OF tn'
government which had been superseded
would not prove to be correct, n hence tn
Act under consideration might very we'll CIV
authority to the Governor to borrow q sun
not exceeding 81, 100000, especially when, sucf
authority was qualified by the words "or s
much thereof as he may deem necessdry." AN
It must be remembered that such estimate
did not include the interest for the month Q
October, nor did IL include any interest upo
such additions to the public debt as had beef
authorized by Acts passed at the preceding
extra session. -.
The next Act which we propose to conside
is IAN Act to close the operations or the BAN
of the State.'' ratified 18th September, lSHS. IL
this Act as II the bonds issued under Its au
thority created q neW deb: on the part OF tn
State, and, therefore, contend that Its constr
t%utionality must be tested by the provision
OF Section 7, Article 8, Of the Constitution, TO
against the foregoing Acts, But the Act noS
In question does not purport to create an!
new debt. 1t does not even authorize the boz
rowing of money to pay an old debt. ltsln
| ply authorizes the funding or certain ooliga
lions for which the State was liable, then ou'
standing. In the shape Of bills Of the bank, i
the bonds authorized by the Act. In othe
words, instead Of authorizing the Issue
bonds to raise money. to pay ~outStandin
debts, It simply authorizes the change OF tn
form OF such indebtedness from
BANK TO BONDS,
and its constitutIonality must be test
ed by the provisiOnso OF Section 10, rether tina
Section I, of Article 0 Of the Constitution
Such objections cannot, therefore, be sustain
ed. Another ground of objection, however
Is that these bills were not ''stock, BONDS Q
other evidences Of Indebtedness or the STATE
issued by It," and the Act is, for that reason
Article 0, of the Constitution. It's quite tru
that these bank bills were not either stock
or bonds If the State, but we are nj q loss I
conceive how any one can deny, In view {
the provisions OF the bank charley that sue
bills were "evidenccs OF indebtedness" whic
though not previously issued directly by II
State, were Issued by u corporation created b
the Statetin which IL was the sole Stockton
er, under express authority roin Inc stats, &c
the sole benefit OF the State. For the chartt
expressly provided that faith of the stat
is hereby pledged for the support Of the sal
bank, and to supply any deficiency in I'll
funds specially pledged, und TO make good q
losses arising from such dehclency:. . Stat
"a: or course 1t must be remembered thi
|! the liability Of the State for these bills WI
Incurred Under Constitution which did NJ
impose the sarnG limitations upon The powt
of the General Assembly 10 contract debts 1
are contained In the Constitution of 1888, an
the State having, under the previous Const
tuition, Incurred n liability, evidenced b
these bank bills, issued by its authority, "
see no reason why the present State SoVerl
ment, under the present Constitution. ma
not change the form of such liability by COZ
gcrting these 'evideliccs OF indebtedness !
The shape of bank bills into bonds.
The next Act to be considered is"Ah Act
authorize u loan for the relief OF the Tre:lsl
ry," approved 18th February, ldG0.-4 stat
49,. This Act we regard KS liable To two col
stltutional objections LIST. 1t purports to or
ate q debt which was not for the purpose
defraying extraordinary expenditures an
I'd, the debt therein sought to be created
not .fUr some single object" and such obje,
Is not "dIstiuctly specified therein" and IL !
therefore. In violation Of two of the claus,
OF Section I, Art. 8, OF the Constitution. :
We hayc already seen, provision had preViou
" been made for the redemption OF the bill
receivable and for the payment OF the lnte
est on the public debt then In arreaL, aud "
are not aware OF any other expenditure whiC
the General Assembly were then called apo
to pgUvidc for which could properly be classe
AMONGST extraordinary expenditures an
none such have been suggested to us. IN
most natural Inference IS that the object
this Act was To raise money to meet the Gu
rent demands upon the Treasury. In anticip
ton of The collection OF the taxes levied Il
that purpose. and such demands, as we nay
seen, fall into the class OF ordinary expense
and cannot, therefore be regarded as "extrao
binary expenditures" Again, the del
which this Act purpOrts to authorize came
be said to be "for some SINGLE Object nor
such 'distinctly specified therein
lone BORROWED
stfor the relief of the Treasury" Nigh
and would be applied to rs many oil
Terenn objects rs there were demands upo
the Treasury. We think, therefore,. that TIL
Act clearly violate both clauses OF the Const
tuition above referred to, and. upon the ,prln
ciplcs heretofore announced III this opinion
every bond, together with Its coupons. issue
under the authority Of this Act Is absolutel,
void even in the hands Of a botd JGde holde
because issued without my authority Wha
ever, and hence every consolidation BOND res
ing upon such bonds or coupons Is, to the eA
tent that it does rest upon such bonds or COZ
pons, not valid debt OF the State or Soul
Carolina. 80,
Is AN Act to provide for the appointment o
a and commissioner and to define his power
and duties" approved 9th March, 1868, Dat
Statutes. 2G5) and the Act am%endatory there
OF, approved LIST March. 1870. Qith Statutes
3Sc.) Tho constitutionality Of the Acts Is IA
to more than one subject, and such subject
are not expressed in their titles. and they are
therefore, In violation OF Section ~, Article :
of the constitution. This objection has al
ready been disposed OF by the decision in tn
case of Morton, BIS. T. Co. vs.. Comptroller
| General, to which may be added the case q
San Antonio VS.. Meliaffey, (96 U. s. Report.
3l2.) In which the Supreme Court OF the Uni
ted States put the same construction upon
similar clause In the Constitution OF the Stat
| of Texas. I'd. Upon the ground that thcs
| Acts were not passed by the requisite consti
tutlonrl maJority-that IS, by the vote or two
tn birds OF all the members OF each branch q
the General Assembly-but only by the yot
- t,ro- III irIc NJ tbr tDcn1rprS voting. being q