The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1905-01-03
lHAH]&A%>~%%HH>|
} THE COLLECTION OF I
RECONSTRUCTION DEBTS. 4
,A~%>>.N%<~<%>t
(Jacksonyille Times-Union.)


The role assumed by South Dakota
OF collecting so-called debts against
her sister states for consideration,
il not one to be admired, but the
grouping of Florida in the list of
states that can be affected by such
course is mistake.
An examination of the decision of
the United States supreme court rem
dered last February, in the case OF
South Dakota VS.. the state of North
Carolina and contrasting 1t with the
decision of our supreme court in the
Holland case reported in Is Florida,
will convince all that the decision of
the United States supreme court can
not be construed as affecting the Flor
ida case.
South Dakota held certain bonds
issued by North Carolina, and secured
b. mortgage on 100 shares of stock
Of the North Carolina Railway Com
pany. 1t was this stock, so mortgaged,
that the United States supreme court
subjected to the satisfaction Of the
debt.
1t was held that where a state holds
bonds of another state, which are spe-
cifically secured by shares of stock
belonging to the debtor state. the court
would enter a decree adjudging the
amount due, and for foreclosure and
sale of the security in case of non
payment.
Justice Brewer. in giving the dec,-
sion of the court, expressly alluded
To the absolute inability of a court to
compel levy Of taxes by the legisla-
ture. -
Now, the se-cslled reconstruction
bonds of Florida. issued under the act
OF 1869, as amended in 1870. during
csrpetbag rule. could never come I'M
der this decision.
Our so-called bonds were issued in
exchange for railroad bonds, and the
state was trustee, holding statu-
tory lien of the same validity of first
mortgage.
When the issue was brought before
Cur supreme court, as will be seen by
reference to the Holland case in 18th
Florida, the court, by unanimous de-
cjsion, held the bonds unconstitution-
al. An examination of that decision
will show the strong grounds upon
which the decision was based. 1t can
not be said that the court was a paTti-
san court, hostile to all reconstruction
acts. OF the three members consti-
tuting the court, two Of them were
well-known republicans; and the third
received his appointment from a re-
publican governor.
The court held that while the deci-
sion relieved the state from an obi
cation as debtor, it does not relieve
the company or the property of the
company where it is affected by all
the equities affecting il when in the
control of the company"
In the decision of our supreme
court, which declared the so-called
bonds unconstitutional, the court held,
"as the company received the money.
and the state received nothing, the
company was to be held to the obli-
CATION of common honesty in the mat
ter of payment and satisfaction"
The creditors did seize and sell the
road, and the net amount went on
their debt. In word, the creditors
accomplished under the decision of
cur supreme court just what the
United States supreme court has de-
cided the creditors have the right to-
in the case of Dakota vs. North Caro-
lima
There having been "a foreclosure
and sale of the security" in the Florida
case, and the United States supreme
court holding 10 the doctrine of the
absolute inability of a court to com
pei levy OF taxes by the legislature. &"
there seems no reason of grouping
Florida in the list of debtor states
when her supreme court pronounces
the so-called bonds unconstitutional.
Florida has never hoisted the flag
OF reputation behind the shield Of
sovereignty, says our highest judicial
tribunal land all Floridians bow to the
decision of that court.