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

issued in conformity TO the provisions OF the
several Acts authorizing their issue, but ito
test the validity of the said consolidated bonds
and coupons and certificates of stock mention
ed in Schedule :" and certainly the additional
words contained in that sectlon-"bringing be-
fore the Court the various classes OF vouchers
which it Is alleged in the report of the said
Bond Commission impair the validity OF the
Gates Of stock, or any OF them"-cannot have
the effect of either enlarging or contracting the
Issue which the cases were made up To try. The
only object of these additional words was TO in
struct the Attorney General and his associates
to sec to 1t that the grounds upon which the
consolidation bonds had been assaulted in the
report OF the Bond CSmmission should be
specially constituted to try the above stated Is
sue, and perhaps to provide that these vouchers
h0uld be competent evidence upon such trial.
To make the matter still clearer, the Legisla-
ture proceeded In the tenth Section to direct the
levy OLA tax sufficient to pay the interest on all
the conSoIid .tion bonds, &c. and in tho twelfth
Section provided that the Interest on the bonds
&c, mentioned in Schedule o should be paid
whenever thee should be n tfnnt adjudication
as To the validity Of lie said several classes of
bonds and certificates of stock IN nc nianner
guagc would seem TO place II beyond dispute
that it. was Intended to invest the Court Of Claim
with full jurisdiction TO make "a Jindt adjudica-
ton (sEbjcct only to appeal as provided in the
rcsolutionJ Ofall questions touching the validi-
ty of the consolidated bonds, and that when
such adjudication was made no question as TO
The validity of such bonds should remain open,
but If such adjudication was In favor OF the
bonds, then the interest thereon was TO be paid.
Now us under the construction adopted by the
Court OF Claims some of these questions were
left open and undecided, 1t Is very clear to our
minds that such construction was not the prop
er one.
In reviewing the Judgment OF the Court of
Claims two general questions present them:
selves; First. Are the conclusions announced
in tlutt Judgment as to the existence of the
several inflrmities alleged against the several
classes of vouchers we'll founded? Second. If
they are well founded, does 1t 'llOw that the
consolidation bonds. &c, resting in whole or in
part upon such vouchers, are invalid and not
binding obligations Of the State? But, from the
view which we take of this case, 1t Will only be
necessary for us to consider the second question
as the answer to that will be conclusive Of the
result in the cases now before the Court.
But for the fact that n different view has been
suggested from Il source which We have always
been accustomed to treat with the highest res
spcct, we would have deemed 1t scarcely neces-
sary to say that In the consideration OF this
question we are bound to regard the Constltu-
ton of 1868 as the fundamental law Of the State
and that all acts OF the General Assembly pass
ed since its adoption not in violation OF any OF
its provisions or those OF the Constitution OF the
United States are just rs valid and oftllc same
binding force and elect as any other statute
passed at another period of the history OF the
State. Any other view would be In violation Of
the fundamental principles upon which all re-
publican governments resi-, anu WOulu leau I'D
incxtricablc confusion and perhaps To civil
CONJUNCTION and strife. Without undertaking
to inquire into the mode and manner by which
the Constitution of 1865 was adopted 1t is enough
To say that the people of the State have for years
ac1uiesccd in it and treated 1t rs the fundancn-
tai law of the State. The whole machinery OF
the Stale government was framed and Is now
operating under the provisions OF that ConStt-
tlon. The ver;' Investigation which led to the
framing Of the case now before IT," Court was
set on foot by q Legislature clcctcdi pursuance
of It's provisions. The Court of Claims, whose
decision we are called upon TO review, and this
Court itself, were both organized under and owe
their authority to the Constitution of 1868. 1t is
manifest. therefore, that we are bound TO re-
gard that Constitution Us the fundamental law
OF the state and all Acts passed In pursuance OF
its provisions us OF the same binding force and
effect SIS any that may befound on the statute
book passed prior to"the adoption of that Con-
stitution. AS fancy, CO., says In case Of LII
ther Is. Borden. I How 4U: Judicial power
presupposes an established govcrhmentcapable
OF e~nacting laws and enforcing their execution
and Of appointing Judges to eXpound and adj
minister them. The acceptance Of the Judicial
office is a recognition of the authority of the
from which 1t Is derived, and If
the authority Of that government is annulled
and Overthrown, the power of Its courts and
court should enter upon the inquiry proposed
in this case, and should come to the conclusion
that the government under which 1t acted had
been put aside and displaced by an opposing
government Tor was u usurpation as seems TO
be cOntendcd Tor by one OF the Judges Of the
Court OF C1atms,) it would cease TO be n court
and be incapable of prouounclng a judicial de-
cision upon the question it undertook to try.
lit decides 1t oil as Il court, II n cesSarily ar
firms the existence and authority Of the gov
eminent under which 1t Is exercising Judicial
power"
The legal principles which determine the an
swcr to the question which We are called upon
to solve are few In number and are well estab-
lished. II Is manifest that tn" question depends
upon the inquiry whether the state has, by n
valid contract, bound Itself TO pay the amounts
port to secure, for though the action In each Of
the cases Is upon q coupon Of one of SuCh bonds,
1t may be regarded, and, for convenience, will
be spoken Gin this opini"D, as If the action
were upon the bond itself-the legal principles
involved being alike applicable Ia action on
a coupon ns II n bond. State vs.. Spartanburg
and Union Railro I'd Company, SIS. c.. lGl. re.
cogniZins CITY of kcnosIIa VS.. Lawson . Wall.
iSa, and City ofLexington VS.. Butler, II Wall.
ZG.
Now, as tho Supreme Court of the United
States has uniformly held that, while they viii
as a general rule regard the construction given
by State C,urts TO State legislation and State
Constitutions M conclusive, su II rules subject
to this exception that where the question in
yolred Is not only whether such legislation I'm.
pairs that which is admitted to be a contract but
whether that which is alleged to be q
cont'act Is In fact contract estate
ferson Branch bank VS.. Skeiy. ! Black. 1876.
G.lpcke VS.. Dubuque, | Wall, 18: Township OF
IInc Grove VS.. Tuicolt, 10 Wall, Gi and AS the
General Assembly. in providing for this inves.
t%igation, has, In expressed terms, recognized the
right Ofthe particsto invoke the judgment Ol
this tribunal Of last resort, II becomes impor-
tant to examine the question In the llghtof the
decisions Of the supreme Court OF the United
Suites.
like these under consideration. as we'll as the
coupons thereof, are negotiable securities, and,
as such, subject to the same rulc S Oflaw rs gov
cru that class OF securities. White VS.. Vermont
Railroad Company, p How, 575; Mercer COun
ty VS.. county Of sac, So United States Rep, 81
Langston VS.. s.. c. K. Il. Co., . south Carolina
Rep, 2lS.
negotiable paper incur the same responsibilities
which attach To individuals or corporations In
like cases. United States rs. Bank Of Mclropo.
lis, IL Peters, 3D. Murray VS.. City Council, %
IT,, :. Rep, H, The Floyd Acceptance, : Wal.
lace, SD. AS Is said IN the last named case - t
must be taken as settled that when the United
States becomes II party TO what Is called COM
mcrcial paper-by which Is meant that class ol
paper which is transferable by end ,rSclncnt OF
or delivery, and, bctw, en- private parties, is cx-
elnpt. in the Lands of innocent holders, from
inquiry into the circumstances under which
1t was put into circulaliol-tley arc bound, in
any court to whose Jurisdiction they submit. by
tie same principles that govern individuals III
lnelr relations TO such paper"
That the plaintiffs in these cases, as well as
tie holders Of the coupons for which the bonds
here in question were exchanged, arc entitled TO
be regarded rs bona tide holders before maturi-
ty, and entitled to all the rights incident thereto,
we do not thnk can be questioned, as there IL no
proof to the contrary, ut tho very utmost only
suspicion. The rule upon this subject, as stated
BY Mr.. Justice Swayne in the case Of San An
tonia VS.. Mcha1fcy, COG US Rep, ut page 81.
upon the authority OF 2 Pars., (Bills and Notes,
81 and ,Pinkerton vs. Bailey, Is Wcnd., 60O,) il
that 'tho holder of commercial paper, in the alb
sencc of proof to the. contrary, is presumed to
have taken it under due notice, for O valuable
considcratiouNand without notice OF any objec-
ton to which it was table," and, as is said by
Mr.. Justice Field in Cromwell VI. County of Sac.
Cog U. S. Rep, $751; in speaking of similar obi
cations issued by municipal corporations, &C.,
they are transferable by delivery, and.
the hands of a bona tide purchaser for value be-
fore maturity, freed from any %intirmity in their
origin. Whatever fraud the officers authoriZ ed
to issue them may have committed in d~isposing
of them, or however entire may have been the
failure of the consideration promised by parties
receiving them, these circumstances will not af-
feet the title of subsequent bona tide purchasers
for value before maturity or the liability of the
municipalities. As with other negotiable paper,
mere suspicion that there may be o defect of title
in its holder, or knowlcdgcof circumstances which
would excite suspicion as to his title IN the mind
of q prudent man, is not sufficient to impair the
title of the purchaser. That result will only fol-
low where there has been bad faith on his part.
Such is the decision of this Court, and subse-
q~uently its language, in the case Of Murray VS..
Lardner G Wall, 100 That is a very strong
case upon tho subject. The facts, in brief, were
l.A.~. hyo-,t,o1ln 1,D,N1y 1,.nrn ufp1np frNy, 7 md