Okolona messenger. (Okolona, Miss.) 1900-current, 1904-04-06


case of the State OF South Dakota VS.. North Caro-
lina they are doomed to early and utter disappOnt-
ment for the decision OF the tribunal OF the United
States is in no way connected with the two repudia
ted Mississippi bond issues.
In the case OF South Dakota VS. North Carolina
the North Carolina bonds on which the suit was
brought and judgement was obtained in the United
States Supreme Court secured by lien on GER
tain railroad stocks held by the State Of North Caro-
lina and these stocks ordered by the court to
subject to the payment Of the claim.
This phase Of the States makes clear dstiDc-
ton there we're others, between the repudiated
bond issue Of North Carolina and Mississippi. The
Mississippi bonds we're secured by stock in the
banks, which is now worthless. Even we're the
Federal Court to declare the Mississippi bonds q
valid charge against the State, snch judgment
would be worthless, bacause there would be no way
in which it could be collected. The Federal courts
can not enforce judgement against tue State though
in some instances, as in the North Carslina bond
suit, they may enforce 3 lien property iu which
the state is interested.
But it was unnecessary for the Federal courts to
take q hand in the Mississippi bond issue. The
Supreme Court Of Mississippi held that the bond is
sues valid debt against the State and should
and should be paid, but the legislature refuse to
appropriate money for this purpose. A Federal de-
eisiOn could not have made the claim valid than.
the decision Of the Supreme Coult OF Mississippi,
but there was way to collect the debt, Ia the
case OF North Carolina; no property held by the
Daring the second administration OF Gov. Bran
don in 1880 an act passed by the legislature Of
The State establishing the Planters Bank OF MIssis
sippi. The faith ef the State was pledged to make
good all losses which might accrue from deficiency
OF the funds Of the bank and twothirds Of the eaD
tai stock Of the bank, which was So 600, OOO was
reserved for subscription By the State. So the
bonds OF the State issued ia the sum Of So 600
900 to take up this stock.
One bank was not enough. In 1887 the legsla-
ture passed an act incorporating the Union Bank Of
Mississippi, with capital stock Of els OO0 OOO and
the faith Of the State pledge both for the secur
ty Of the capital and the interest. To take up the
first installment $4,000, 900 worth OF The States
bonds, we're sold to Nicholas Bddle Of Pennsylvania
5uch mushroom hnanciering was doomed from the
nrss' AND both OF the banks soon became involved
and failed. Both bond issues we're pronounced
legal and binding % the State but no payment has
ever been or ever will be made BY the State The
question OF whether the State should repudiate the
FAanterS Bank bonds Was submitted 70 the people,
and though the faith Of the State had been pledge
the people BY direct vote repudiate the debt.
In case Of the Union Bank bonds 4 suit was
brought against the State to enforce payment aud
though the court heldsin clear end emphatic terms
that the debt vas legal and Just no appropriation
was ever made to pay the holders OF these bonds
ands unlike the North Carolina case, the securities
were worthless and the only way payment could be
made was by volunteer appropriation from the eeis-
lature refused to make.
The attorney general Of Mississippi waa shown
tbe opinion Of the Supreme Court 0l tile Uoited
States in the case OF South Dakota against Norih
Carolina, and after reading the opinion 10 fall aud
making careful investigation Of the e4sp held that
the decision IN no way affects Missise1pp thaf The
cases were as seperate and distinct as they possibly
could be-
"Ihe decussiOn Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States, said the attornevpeneral. s',n the
North Carolina bond issue case does not 10 any par
ucular aneot Mississippi. The facts 10 the Eve
cases are entirely different
This summer the fruit bat uill Be the style
just now the Easter hat looks good enough to eat