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

the validity Of an OF the Consolidated bonds,
coupons and certificates OF stock, or Of any OF
the various classes Of them mentioned in the
sold report OF the Bpsi Commission as rest
Ing on vouchers not iss ued In accordance with
law and authorized TO ,,e consolidated by the
act Of the General Assembly, approved De-
cember q, 1873, entitled IAN act 70 reduce the
volume OF the public debt and provide for the
In accordance with law, and further desig.
mated and described In Schedule 8 Of said re-
port"
Surely there is no room to misunderstood
the meaning OF this language. 1T gives TO the
Court unlimited Jurisdiction TO determine the
validity OF those consolidated bonds, coupons
and certificates OF stock which the Bond Com
mission mention Us resting on vouchers
law, and which bonds, coupons and certin-
Gates OF stock the Bond Commission arranged
and tabulated IN Schedule O. Section . Is
equally clear and explicit, and provides that
holders may make up a case or cases TO be
heard and determined In said Court, In which
II practicable, the State shall be defendant, TO
test The validity Of the said Consolidated bonds
and coupons and certificates Of stock mention
ed in said Schedule 6, bringing before the Court
the various classcs Of vouchers which II Is al.
legged In the report Of the said commission
bonds. coupons and certificates Of stock. or
any Of them.
THE QUESTION AT ISSUE.
1t Is clear that the joint resolution creates a
special court for u special purpose, and that
Is to determine the validity OF u well DEEMED
class Of Consolidated bonds, viz: those pro.
nouncsd by the Bond Commission to be in
valid, and classed in Schedule G Of their re-
port. Beyond this limited sphere the Court
cannot go; but for the purposeof deciding the
validity Of those particular bonds Its powers
are AS sample and plenary rs the Courto Com
mon Pleas. There Is absolutely no restriction
Of power within this lirsit. 1t II true the
Court Is empowered and required TO suffer the
~litigants To bring before 1t the vouchers upon
makes evidence touching these vouchers eN-
pressly admissible, when otherwise II might
not have been so. But making 1t admissible
does not take from the Court the power and
duty to determine its ultimate effect upon the
single question at Issue, to wit: the rdiidiyo OF
the Consolidated bonds.
l am ut n loss, therefore, to understand how
the Court hos arrived ut so strangea conclu.
lion as is announced in its Judgment. That
conclusion Is that we arc appointed to dctor-
mine not the validity Of the Consolidation bond,
coupons and certificates Of stuck, but the Ca.
Idly. Of he vouchers upon ,rhtch Htey. rest: and
we are compelled by til: terms Of the joint
resolution to declare the bonds resting on
them to be in valid. In other words, that Al
We possessed the general Jurisdiction Of the
Court Of Common Pleas, We might 60 further
and determine the validity Of Consolidation
bonds although resting on invalid vouchers
ana WOulQ Nc W liberty 10 pronounce tneIU
valid Notwithstanding innrmities in tho
vouchers. But NJ such power, IL IL contended
Is accorded this Court, which. should It nm
the vouchers invalid. Is, ex II ternsfnt Of thu
auiry Into the validity OF the Consolidation
bonds resting thereon.
!. WHAT THE COURT HAS LEFT UNpoNE
II this be the correct Interpretation Of thu
language Of the Legislature the whole worf
OF that body and the labors OF the attorney
T for the litigants and OF this Court are -abort
i've. 1t leaves the main. question, the OH.
which p%erplexes the Legislature, nnd whici
underlies this great public debt question, un
5 touched, to wit, the legal effect OF the Consol
Furthermore, 1t leaves the bondhoiders ell
. tirely free TO renew this contentioni In aCour
! which will lake cognizancc OF the question Z
the validity OF the Consolidation bonds.
i lam constrained to differ with my breth
s rem III the construction placed upon the Join
resolution, and to dissent from tho judgmen
OF the Court in the aforesaid test cases 70
the reasons above given. And l hold tina
e ton OF the Slate oil South Carolina, rs IL ev
, cry bond issued In exchange for vouchers e,
. pressly named In the act Of December q, Isl
: Suppose the debate upon the report OF tn
Bond Commission had resulted In a propose
Q compromise Of the consolidated bonds, cot
Y pons and certificates OF stock designated nm
z described In schedule I, n that the holder
g Of these ~consols, accepting the terms Of th
hi kiGo ~ tkitN . y
ceTved new consols nj u further reduce
s amount.
THE BONDS ARE VALID.
Would any mnn contend that the compro
c mise was not binding on the State? Coul
the new consols. the fruit Of such q co.npst
court Of Justice? We hold not; md yet th
e present consolidated bonds occupy groun
l. Just as unassailable. They are valid oblig,
tiOns Of the State, and their payment sh
| rn n - nj nVDtt m tn " rHsINnntea1 npinninInl
law. She may escape through %repudiatiol
but the law will lend her 10 helping hand !
:; this last desperate resort. .,
n Could South Carolina be honorably oil
q charged from, This heavy debt and oil other
that burden her Impoverished people, no on
would rejoice more than / would. I .hSV'
throughout this trial, keenly felt the how
responsibility resting upon me, and havs 81
e deavored " Discharge my duty as a jutg
with All eye single TO the law governing Ill
case.
o Better by far that the Stale should sunt
Y through a proper vindication Of the law B
her courts than that Temporary relief sAoul
accrue to the taxpayers through IT. peFve
e sion; and II relief shall cOpac 10 hss poop
c through the Judgment Of those With whom
Il have, with MUCH difSdsnce and g"cat reHfec
L differed, I will be most happy to acFnowledf
e my error when demonstrated before theCouI
Igrentiy regret that the Court has 80 COZ
strued the Joint resolution ~ to esche,
and ignore the only question which can set
the Issue between The state and the holders
her Consolidated bonds, via: the force an
. effect Of the Consolidation Act. and has cor
fined itself TO the simple inquiry as to the u
hrmities Of the surrendered and cancelle
vouchers. $1,000
G 1t leaves the vsxed question of the validlt
G Of the bonds In Schedule 8 res HAcgrd:
]. H. HUDSON,
Judge Coast OF Claims.
Columbia, g. c., December IS. 1878.