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

An improper eHcTClSe OF NUInOrlty could
only occur In knowingly receiving. In ex.
change for Consolidation bonds vouchers not
included In the net. If upon examining the
act he finds the securities rendered to be
his duty is TO make the exchange. No dlscre.
ton Is left him. But suppose by the terms OF
the act the treasurer could act judicially and
determine whether vouchers rendered though
ly his judgment upon the question Is final, as
there Is no appeal, and the Consolidation
bonds Issued by him becomes, In the hands OF
an innocent holder for value without notice,
unimpeachable.
Should he err In his Judgment and issue a
Consolidation bond In exchange for invalid
vouchers, how Is that to impair the bond In
the hands OF an innocent holder? Who Is to
be the loser, the state who cOnfided this work
to Its servant, or the innocent purchaser?
Clearly the State must suffer. She having
conferred upon the treasurer authority to issue
Consolidation bonds, cannot rs against an In
nocent holder for value OF her bonds, deny
that the authority was conferred, or that It
was improperly exercised;
In Knox VS.. Asplnwall, 81 How. $40, the
defence of the county against the suit of the
plaintiff was that the bonds were authorized
to be issued only upon q vote of n majority Of
the voters OF the county after due notice of
the time and place OF the election, and that
this due notice not having been given, the
bonds were invalid.
1t was n fact that due notice had not been
given, and the Supreme Court says "This
Would seem to be decisive against the author
ity OF the board to issue the bonds, were itnOt
for n question that undcrlics 1t, and that Is,
who Is to determine whether or not the cleo
ton has been properly held" The Court
holds that 1t was for the board to determine
that question, and TINT their decision could
not be called In question "after the authority
had been eXcrted, the stock subscribed and
the bonds issued and In the hands of inno-
cent holders" Page d5.
In Colona vs.. Eaves, % u. s., 4S, the as
certainment of the condition precedent to
the issue of the bonds, to wit: q vote OF the
majority of the legal voters OF the town, was
lodged in the Town Council. In resisting the
payment of the bonds, the Council commended
that they had been issued without such a
vote. The Supreme Court held that by the
act of the Legislature the authority to decide
this question was conferred on the Town
Council, md hat body having Issued the
bonds and put them on the market, the own
was estopped from proving the q Of the
vote, in q suit by q bona fdc holder. That was
a question for the Town Council, and that
body having decided in favor of the issue,
their decision was final.
In Blssell VS.. the City of Jefferson, "a
How. 2S8, the city council was authorized to
subscribe for stock and Issue bonds upon the
written petition of three fOurths of the legal
voters. The city council made the subscrip-
tion and issued tho bonds when. as it after
wards appeared, three fourths Of the legal
voters in fact had not petitioned, yet the city
council having decided otherwise and issued
the bonds, tho Court would not admit the