The Weekly Tallahasseean., 1901-11-22
FLORIDA STATE BONDS.

State Treasurer ]. B. Whitfield has
received letters recently from Mr.. JOS
eph M. Lightenauer, of New York, ask
ing about certain Florida State bonds
issued several years ago. The, following
letter, sent in answer to these queries,
is self-exlpanatory:
Mr.. Joseph M. Lightenauer, Dear
Sir:-In your letters of recent date
you state that you are the owner of
$4,000. Of Florida State bonds which
are in default, with 81 semi-apnuaI in
terest coupons attached thereto and
that they were issued under an Act Of
the Legislature approved January 18th,
1870, and signed by Harrison Reed,
Governor, and countersignedi by the
Treasurer, to mature January 1st, 1900,
and ask ''is there any chance for a
settlement of this debt?"
The Constitution of Florida of 1868,
Article XII, section Z, provides that
''the Legislature shall have the power
ito provide for issuing State bonds
bearing interest for securing the debt
"Of the State, for the erection of State
buildings, and for the support of State
institutions; but the credit of the
''State shall not be pledged or loaned
Ito any individual, company, corpora
'tion or association; nor shall the State
become a joint owner or stockholder
''in any company, association or cor
"pOration."
The Legislature by an Act approved
January 18th, 1870 authorized the is
sue of State bonds in aid of a railroad
company.
The Supreme Court of Florida in the
case of Holland VS.. the State Of Flor
ida, Is Florida Reports, page 455, de-
cided at the January term 1876, that
these bonds were null and void, hold
ing the Act of the Legislature under
which they were issued to be in conflict
with said section of Article XII Oi
the Constitution of 1868.
In this opinion the court says: ''The
Legislature must be held to some
''Iimitation in the matter, and looking
ito the executive, legislative anG
judicial history of the State, it is tor
"clear for doubt that line or roat
from Quincy to Mobile cannot be held
Ito be a public work within the mean.
''ing of the Constitution, as it ha;
been heretofore defined by the justice:
"of this court. Such a road is beyont
''and OutSideOf the general scope ant
design of the original enterprise, anC
"the Constitution does not authorize
''the Legislature to aid any other rail
way than those embraced in the theI
existing system. 1t may De said tina
'the road to Mobile will be of mucl
greater benefit to the people, ant
''other suggestions of like characte
may be made. With questions of pol
''icy of this character this court ha
nothing to do ,and they should no
"and do not weigh one grain in reach
'ing a conclusion.
''The bonds of the State of Florid;
"here authorized to be issued are
therefore, unconstitutional. The powe
"of the Legislature is limited in thi
respect, and the bond here sanctionet
''is not embraced within the limitation
'One Of the consequences of this
"that neither the State nor her peopl
"are bound for the bonds now in tn
''hands of those who hold them. N
doctrine of estoppel can operat
against the State"
This shows that the bonds you men
toned are not debt of the State O
Florida.
Very Respectfully
> J. B. WHITFIELD,
: Treasurer of Florida.