The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1897-05-18

tuasl tbASs bonds and the coupons
th5r6to attached, SO that it was i'm
possible for any one to use thom
again on the markets of the world,
and himself saw them shipped by
express to the State treasury, where
they now are, in mutllated condi-
ton. Mr.. Wesley received his ST.
OOo,OOo in revenue bond scrip, and
has always maintained that he held
it merely as collateral, and by far
the greater portion Of that scrip, is
, now in the vaults of the Carolina
National bank, in the city Of Colum-
bia, whore it has been since the
transaction in 1872. Mr.. Wesley
has been constant in his assertion Of
a claim against the State by reason
of his expenditure of this sum of
$34, 1925 for her account and has re.
peatedly represented to the legisla-
ture/ Of the State that he had gone
ipto tho transaction purely upon a
fbusiness basis, and not rs specula-
tion, and has always expressed him.
self rs willing to settle the claim
upon the basis of loan to the State
Of South Carolina of the amonnt ac
tually advanced, and upon it's pay
mont to surrender the entire issue of
the revenue bond scrip held by him
as collateral therefor.
AS to the validity Of this scrip, it
is resisted by tho State of South
Carolina only upon the technical
ground that in it's form 1t is open to
the objection that it constituted bills
Of credit, and that it's issue was pro-
hibited by the Constitution of the
United States; and upon that ground
the supreme court of the State of
Souths Carolina, the court consisting
of Justices Moses, Miller and Wright,
in the case Of State ex- relations Shi.
YER vs.. Hagood, as comptroller gen
eral, ruled that the scrip was invalid.
Tie question of the validity of the
scrip has boen twice before the Uni
ted States supreme court-frst in
tho case of Williams VS.. Hagood, 09
U. S., y, where the court hold that
the question could not be considered
by the court because the bill alleged
no equity in tho complaint which en-
titled him to decision on the valid
ity Of the scrip, but it was careful to
reserve the right to tho complaint to
bring another action TO test it's valid
ity. The effort was made to do this
in tho second case, entitled Williams
OF ais, vs.. Hagood, reported in III
u S. Reports, at page 50. The
language Of the court in the first of
these cases was certainly encouraging
holding that the decision OF the
State supreme court in tho case of
State OK relatione SILVER Va. Hagood,
lis comptroller general, was not bind
ing upon any holders of scrip; and
in the second suit, to Which Mr..
Wesley was party, tho action was
dismissed upon the sole ground that
tho State Of South Carolina was a
necessary party, but could not be
forced into court against her will
under tho 18th amendment of tho
; Constitution of tho United States.
Nowhere on the merits in either
case, is there any expression Of the
court that can be tortured into a de-
I probation Of the claims of Mr.. Wes-
ley, or of IN expression of opinion
that the scrip was invalid.
After very thore 'gh study of the
whole subject, my mind has become
strongly convinced that if the valid
ity of. tho scrip is ever squarely
passed upon by the United States
supreme court, it will be maintained,
and that the State Of South Carolina
will bo obliged to provide for the
payment of tho ontire Issue, as it is
all made receivable for taxes. And
if its validity is once squarely affirmed
by the United States supreme court
there would be no means for prevent
inp its being used for the pay
NOR of all taxes duo to tho State,
and the State could only prevent the
wheels of government from being
ologged by making somo satisfactory
provision for the retirement of the
entire issue.