The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-10-02
THE STATE DEBT QUESTION.
Decision of the Supreme Court In the Bond
Cases.
C0rrc,pondencc Ne,rs and Courier


COLUMBIA, S. c., Sept. o7, 1870.
The Supreme Court this afternoon filed
its decision in the Consolidation bond
cases, six in number. The opinion
covers fifty pages of foolscap. The fol-
lowing is an accurate abstract OF the
points of
THE DECISION:
G. NJ. Walker, cashier, plaintiff, appel
liant, VS. the State of South Carolina,
defendant, respondent.
T. j. Pelzer, plaintiff, appellant, VS.. the
State of South Carolina, defendant, re-
spondent.
Edward Sebring, plaintiff, appellant, VS..
the State of South Carolina, defendant,
respondent.
The Bank of Charleston National Bank
ing Association, plaintiff, appellant, VS..
the State of South Carolina, defendant,
respondent.
F. ]. Heron, plaintiff, appellant, VS.. the
State Of South Carolina, defendant, re-
spondent.
The Washington Light Infantry, Charles.
ton, plaintiff, appellant, vs.. the State OF
South Carolina, defendant, respondent.
The Supreme Court decides:
First. That all the bonds issued under
all Act entitled can Act to reduce tho
for the payment Of the same," are valid
obligations of the State of South Carolina,
except as follows:
lst, Such as were issued in exchange
for bonds issued under the Act entitled
"An Act to authorize loan for the relief
of the treasury" or for the coupons of
such bonds. The Court decides that the
Act to authorize loan for the relief OF
the treasury, approved 18th February,
1869, Oath Statutes offs. c., p. 1927 vio-
lates Section 7, Article 9, of the Constitu-
tion, first, in that it purports to create a
debt which was not for the purpose OF
defraying expenditures, and second, in
that the debt therein sought to be created
is not for some single object, and such
object is not distinctly specified therein {;
and, therefore, every bond, together with
its coupons, issued under the authority
of this act is absolutely void, even in the
hands of q bona fde holder, because issued
without any authority whatever; and
hence every Consolidation bond resting
upon such bonds or coupons is, to the
extent that it does rest thereon, not
valid debt of the State.
I'd. Such as were issued in exchange
for the second issue of bonds under an
act entitled "An act to authorize State
or the coupons Of such bonds.
Sd. Such as were issued in exchange
for those Conversion bonds which were
issued in exchange for either of the two
classes of bonds last mentioned, viz:
Bonds for relief of the treasury and the
second issue Of bonds to pay interest on
the public dobt, or in exchange for the
coupons of such Conversion bonds.
Secondly. If any Consolidation Bond
rests wholly upon any of these objection
able classes OF bonds or coupons just
mentioned, then it is wholly void; but If
it rests only in part upon such objection
able bonds or coupons, then it is only
void to the extent which it docs rest upon
such Objectionable bonds or coupons,
and for the balance it is valid obliga-
ton of the State.
Thirdly. That the burden OF proof is
upon the State to show that any particu-
lar bond which may be brought into
question does rest either in whole or in
part upon such Objectionable bonds or
coupons, and if in part only, then the
State must show what part is so affected.
The Judgment of the Court of Claims is
set aside and the cases are remanded to
that Court for such further proceedings
as may be necessary under the principles
herein announced.
Tho opinion of the Court is delivered
by Associate Justice McIver.
Chief Justice Willard concurs.
Associate Justice Haskell concurs in
the general results reached by majority
of tho Court, but dissents from the eX-
ceptions made with regard to the partic-
ular classes Of bonds included within the
terms of the Consolidation Act,