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

give no assurance for the payment OF n
bond at the end OF twenty. In theory,
ut least, the bonds of government
should be always at par, as tic credit of
the whole State, when the property Of all
individuals is bound, should exceed the
credit of any single member. 1t is OBJ
vious that when these bonds were used
rs collaterals there was wide departure
from their common use. Seldom have
State bonds been used as guarantee for
the payment of doubtful obligations.
p Ought not the very use TO which thew
were applied have been warming that
something was wrong?
The credit of II State is n sacred thing.
should not be prostitutcd to every com
mon purpose, and hawltcd about on
Change like the note of huckster.
Certainly the circumsta rces surrounding
these bonds would have suggested rigid
scrutiny of their legal origin and of the
power of the possessor to dispose of them.
Objection is taken by tho defendant that
the bonds issued under the two acts of
10Th August, 1868, could neither be sold
nor hypothecated after the expiration of
two years from the date of said acts.
The act passed 18th of February, A. d.
1863, lim,s the time for loans 10 twelve
months, and authorizes lyp0thecation
for loans. The act of 10Th March, 1869,
extends the time for negotiating loans
under the acts OF August 26, 1868, to two
years, and authorizes the pledging of
bonds rs security. These loans are
1872, July LOAN from Norton Bliss
& Co, $2l6,000, colaterals S72O,O ,OO0; B.
r. r. b., $423,OO0. Total, 81, I,l43,0O0
1872, May 22-Loan from L. X Will
lard, 800 900, colaterals $3.50, 900; B. II.
r. b., $4,000 Total 1925 600.
1872, April Loan from Isaac II.
Knox, treasurer, 100000, collatcrals
1871, September 2l-Loan from Drv
Dock Savings Bank, $l00,0 colluterais
$3.50 900.
1872, April 3O-Loan from German
Uptown Savings Bank, $4,000, collat-
erals 100000.
1872, September 10-Loan from Com
mercial Warehouse Company, 1910.
c0llaterals $126,300.
From this statement it appears that all
the loans were made after 10Th August
a. ID. 1870, more than one year after
loans were authorized to he made under
the acts.
The act of 2Gth March, 1869, declares
the financial agent is authorized TO
pledge .he bonds Of the State which the
State now has or may hereafter have in
its possession, rs collateral security for
State loans," with a proyiso that in all
transactions he shall conform to the pro-
visions of the acts of 2Gth August, 1865.
1t is to be observed that the power to
hypothecate is connected with the loans.
HypothecatiOn, however, was adopted as
mode OF eifecting the loans. Tie sim
pie question then is, Within what :iine
dc the acts authorize loan and hypo.h-
ccatiOn?
The answer is given l,y the acts-with-
in two years from the passage of the acts
of Goth August, A. D., 1868, and ono
year from the passage of the act of 18th
February, 1869.
1t is needless to cay that after the time
limited by the acts the Governor could
not under acts of 26ih August, 1868, nor
the Governor, comptroller general and
treasurer, under the act of 18th Febru-
ary, 1869, negotiate State bonds, ror au-
thorize the financial agent to do so.
1t may be submitted in reply to this
That time was not the essence OF the con-
tract. The law is otherwise.
In Green vs.. Biddle, Wharton, 34, it
is said in regard to the law impairing the
obligation OF contracts, that "the nbliga-
tion of contract can never depend upon
the extent of the change which the law
effects in it. Any deviation from the
terms by postponing or accelerating the
period Of performance which it pre-
scribes, imposing conditions not express
ed in the contract or dispensing with the
performance of those which are, however
minute or apparently immaterial ir their
effect upon the contract of the parties,
impairs its obligation"
That time may not be of the essence of
contract is principal of equity juris-
prudence. In cases like the one under
consideration, equity follows the law
III, therefore," says Baron Anderson,
the thing sold be Of greater or less
value, according to the efliuxion OF time,
1t is manifest that time is of the essence
of tie contract; aud stipulation rs to
time must then be literally complied
with in equity, as we'll as in law. The
sion are instances Of this" Hipwell VS..
Knight, l Younge and Collyer. 4l5; 9
Story, secs. 775, 776; Kent, 62l, Note
E.; Batty vs.. Carswell, Q ]. r., 4S.
That time was regarded as an essential
element OF the contract is shown by the
action of the Legislature extending the
time to effect the loans from one TO two
years. In plain language, power of at
torney was given 10 certain officers of the
State to borrow money within twelve
months or two years, and when not ac-
complished in that time their power
ceased. 1t was not power which these
officers could exercise ex-officio. There
%as conferred power, special, from
wnich they derived the right to act,
which they could not modify, 0nd from
which they could not deviate.
1t is deemed scarcely necessary to refer
to the question of notice in relation to
the contract contained in the acts. All
the bonds refer to the acts under which
they were issued in such unmistakuble
language as to give full notice of their
provisions upon reference to them.
There is notice of another character
affecting the bonds-not only that they
were issued after the power had ended,
but that those dealing with them were
not bona fide holders without notice.
Governor Scott, at an early day-in his
message of November, A. d. 87I-states
the fierce warnings given by the press OF
the State that the bonds in question
would never be paid that they were
Bayonet bonds issued by bogus Legis.
lature; warning capitalists of New York
they would not be paid; that the whole
scheme was a job and a swindle, and that
the bonds would never be recognized
when property holders and honest men
had a majority in the counciia of the
State. A page of language of this char.
acter was inserted in his message pub.