The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-02-05
Especial to The Messenger.)

Especial to The Messenger.)
Raleigh, N. c., February This al
ternoon at 4 o'clock, your correspon-
lent was in the office OF the governor
when the latter received a telegram
from Washington to ex-Judge Shep-
herd. announcing that the United
States supreme cou had decided the
South Dakota bond suit adversely To
North Carolina. The news few rapidly
among the officials. The governor said
at once: You can say for US, that
the interests of the holders OF
stocks in the North Carolina Railway
will be fully and carefully protected
The decision appears to involve the
payment of about $4,000 in round
numbers. the principal of ten bonds.
issued in aid of the western North
Carolina Railway in 1867 and with in
terest for "a years. These bonds were
bv the terms Of the act made lieu
upon the states stock in North Car
DINA railway. All the bonds were taken
up by the state years ago at rs cents
on the dollar, under an act to con-
promise. commute and settle the state
debt, save $242, 600 held by a New York
broker named Shafer. 1t Is said that
these bonds were bought for thirty TO
| forty cents on the dollar. Shafer
asked time and again for payment VI
| these bonds, wanting a larger figure
than rs cents on the dollar. He Of
fered to compromise. but never named
any figure. 1t was tor ten of his bonds
which South Dakota sued. AS to loW
these bonds got to South k the
general opinion is through ex-senator
Marion Butler or ex-governor Daniel
Russell. and some very plain taking Is
being done about both Of these ex-poll-
ticians. South Dakota never asked for
payment of these bonds, but simply
sued for them. This is significant.
This is the first suit of this kind eve:
before the United states supreme court.
Officials are certainly surprised at the
courts decision. None of the state
officials have as yet seen the text OF
the supreme courts opinion and hence
do not know how far it goes. Of
course there is all sorts Of surmisinS
by outsiders. One wanted to know
whether this decision would necesSi-
tate an extra session of the legislature:
another calculated that there were
$243, 900 of the bonds of this class out
standing. that is held by South Dako-
ia. Shafer & Co. and that the princi-
pal and interest would amount to $751;
240. Another wanted to know how the
United States court would proceed TO
get the one IN its judgment, and
whether Shafer would ansfer his
other bonds to South Dakota and git
another judgment for balance.
Washington, February 1.-The case
of the state of South Dakota VS.. the
State of North Carolina was today de-
cided by the United states supreme
court favorably to South Dakota. Tne
case involves the validity of a mort
| gage on stock of North Carolina Rail-
road company given by the state of
| North Carolina to secure the pay
ment Of state bonds ii en- in aid of the
oad in 1867. The state of South Da-
kota holds ten 10. - e-ch I'M
| der a gift from Simon Schafer and
Samuel NJ. Schafer Of New York city.
| the amount due on the bonds and cou-
| IONS attached being ST., 900.
The opinion was rendered by Justice
! Brewer, and the decree of the court
was embodied in the following order:
"A decree will, therefore. be entered,
| which after finding the maunt dut On
the bonds and coupons in suit to be
s27, 900, no interest being recoverable,
and that the same are secured by one
hundred shares of stool of the North
| Carolina railroad company. belonging
to the state of North Carolina,
and directs that the said state
of North Carolina pay said amount to
the state of south Dakota. and that in
fault of such payment, an order of sale
be issued to the marshal of the court
directing him to sell at public auction
all the interest of the. state of NORTH
Carolina in and to n hundred shares
of the capital stock of the North Car
DINA Railroad company. such sale ID
be made at the east front door of the
capitol building inthis city public notice
to be given Of such sale by advertise
ments in some daily paper published III
the city of Raleigh, n c.. and also an
some daily paper published in the city
of Washington.
The chief justice and Justices white.
McKenna and Day united in a dis
senting opinion. The decision of the
court is considered a important one
and it marks a new departure in Or
dering the sale of property in dispute
in case Of failure to satisfy a judg-
ment. Coming to that point, Justice
Brewer said there was mo reasonable
doubt of the validity of the bonds N
mortgages in controversy. nor question
respecting the title of South Dakota To
the bonds"
He also asserted the Jurisdiction o.
the court in cases brought by one state
against another TO enforce property
! ri-'+~ 70 aFSo5.
We are confronted with the con-
tention hat there is no power in this
court to enforce such a judgment
and hat such lack of power is con-
elusive evidence thai no~twithstand-
ing the general language of the con-
~tstution. there is an implied excep-
ton OF actions brought to recover
mOnay The nuhlin nrnnarfv bald hu