The commonwealth. (Scotland Neck, N.C.) 1882-1884, 1882-09-07
SPECIAL TAX BONDS.

The one act of the Radical admi
istratiOn that stands alone and HI
no parallel in official fraud and pe
sonal infamy, had it's birth in tt
Legislature of 186S-'69. and the Co
vention immediately preceding i
when they enacted laws authorizin
the issue of certain bonds known 8
the special tax bonds, whereby the
involved the State in debt of So:
100000.
The acts authorizing the issue @
some of these bonds were manifesto
uncons titutional and were so declar
ed by the Supreme Court of tn,
State. Under that decision, som,
millions of dollars in those bond.
that had not been issued were retain
ed by the Treasurer and some mil
lions more. which had been issued
were surrendered by the holders
thereof. But Of the sum so authoriz.
ed, there are eleven millions three
hundred and sixty-six thou sand dol
lars of those bonds still outstanding
against the State, viii oh. with the &C.
crued interest, now amounts tie over
twenty millions of dollars.
The Democratic Legislature of
1879, and the people in 1880, adopt
ed an amendment to the co institution
prohibiting the General Assembly to
assume or pay or authorize the col.
lection Ut any tax TO pay the pr Incl
pal or interest of anv of said special
tax bonds. This, it was thought.
ended the matter, as individual hold.
crs of the bonds cannot sue the STAT.
But new and unexpected view of
the question has given rise to gravest
approximations on this subject. The
State of New York has passed
through her legislature a law en-
abling her citizens to intitute and
prosecute suits a. law in the Supreme
Court of the United States. in the
name Of the State of New York.
against any other Stat in the United
States. By authority of this statue
the owners OF The bonds of the State
OF LoulsiaIa have instituted suits
against hhe State of Louisiana. in
inc supreme Court of the United {
States, using the name of the State g,
OF New York as the plaintiff in said
actions. II these bondholders shall i
recover judgments against the State s
o1 Louisiana, actions will be institut. ,
ed IN the name of the State of New II
\ ork VS.. the State of North Carolina. I
The chief defence that would be made i
Oy the State is that the bonds were ]
in fraud of her rights and in !
law are not binding on her. If the |
state fails to prove corrupt conspira-
~ to defraud her, the bonds will he q
considered as sufficient proof that Y
me State owes the debts demanded q
and the court will give judgments t
against our State for a sum of monev y
'gggregatlng an amount exceeding
'centy millions Of dollars.
How will these judgments be paid?|
The whole amount of real estate in
North Carolina is about 100. 900. 600 f,
These judgments then would take b
rom every citizen in North Carolina W
'ne.fifth of all his real estate IN nav e
lot of bonds created to enrich the n
orrupt Republican members of the D.
legislature of 1868-'69. HI
The political party that is elected te
y the people in the present campaign tt
govern the State, will have charge et
the defense of the State in these G
lost Important suits. Let the intel. =
gent voter ask himself if the Ra6i. tn
al party that has violated trust in th
Re past, is the proper party into re
nose hands We should commit so ne
nportant case. &c
is the party that committed the co
auo the proper party to trust with oe
rowing the fraud in court of law2 al
Ii few hundreds of thousands a.
dollars bribed the Legislature to ~
'mmlt the fraud. is it impossible W
at few millions could and would
used to prevent the p roofs of tile ~
aud? au
Gu