Oxford eagle. (Oxford, Lafayette Co., Miss.) 1876-current, 1908-07-30
THE STATE DEPOSITORY LAW
Treasurer Edwards Win Not Aecsps
Bond Of Surety Company.

Iry State treasurer, today gave ou, the
following signed statement
Il have determined no, to d-po.it .ny
sf the States public money in sny h.nx
regardless of the solvsncy u the ins,i-
tuition, where the only sort Of security
0nered - the tond of a surety company
In justice TO myself. desire 10 mas.
public the reasons which have led me ~
this eonclusion- They are 80 follows.
The state depository Law has hseu
held by a majority Of IN. Supreme Court
to be constitutional. tn. chief Justice
dissenting in a very sbl. opinion The
term Q: Judge Calhoon expires next NAV
! do not know whether the governor will
reappoint him or not. But IL the gov.
ernor were to appoint in his stead . new
Judge who agrees with Judge Whitfield
that the state depository hw 10 vio-
lative Of Section i37 of the eonstitution,
and II my bondsmen and I wer. sued for
any money which had been lost by the
State depositories, and Oh. ease were
carried up to the Supreme Court. even
though nv defense would Be that I had
complied literally with an act which had
previously been declared to BE- con.ti-
NNNs|@sf Nat NRsAts eAAA NaF Nuaukr
wrought by the appointment Of Q neg
Judge. could overrule its previous deci-
sion. declare the act unconstitutional and
hold my bondsmen and me responsible
for the money.
In support Of this. wish to quote
from an opinion BY one OF tn. sble.t
lawyers. in my opinion. in the State:
There il no constitutional or legal
restriction on the supreme Court pre-
venting it from overruling decisions; but
the fact that rights sad obligations had
accrued under a statute after Il had
been held constitutional would b. q very
potent consideration in influencing the
court not to overrule the former decision,
or TO upset contract rights accrued under
it. But, however reluctant the court
may Be to overrule q d-risioa under eieh
circumstances. IL would have the power
to do %. II. therefore. you ~er. sued
BY the state for such q loss and should
plead compliance With the act. and the
plaintiff should then plead the act 10
Unconstitutional, the Supreme Court
would have the power, IL Il cav 1T, to
overrule the present decision and deny
you the protection Of the statute.
Rights and defenses secruing under .
statute are not effected BY Q subsequent
rep>al BY the legislature. but il i tc
some extent different with the rights
and obligations incurred in reliance upoo
a decision of the supreme Court II the
Judgment Of the court had BEEN in a
mandsmus suit. and v0u had been or
d-rei 20 do q certain thing. your duty
to do il would have been stjudicated.
but we uni>r-tand that the suit was
merely an injunction to test the validity
OF thIs statute
-From the above. II will be observed
that occupy a very deliFate position
ANY uncertain step upon my part might
b~ iraught with much evil consequences
TO nv fri~nts- I cannot afford to take
aHv CHANCES on What might happen. OF
what the courts might 10. | am in a
position Wh>rr | must know. ! would
prove mys-lf unfaithful TO the friends
who in many ways have proved their
loyalty to me. if were To permit them
TO b. plac~d in anv sort of doubtful
positisnl IL - NV duty to be prepared
for the verv worst. and to b. in perfect
readiness TO show. beyond eavil OF doubt,
to thu courts and the people II MississIP-
pi that am neither morally nor legally
responsible for any loss which may
ocrur
III I am ultimately forced by the
order Of the court to deposit the States
money in banks offering surety bonds,
despite the fact that I have opposed it
as vigorously a. | have known how to
oppose il, both BY resolution in the
committee, which was voted down by
the governor and the attorney general,
and in the courts Of the State, the blame
for los. if loss there be. must be borne
by those who have made it possible to
get the States money. without giving
in return for il securities of a known
commercial value. out of which l, AZ
agent of the State, could readily realize
in time of need.
Il have absolutely no confidence at all
in q surety bond. II is not collateral
security. or security OF any sort. IL
possesses no commercial value, and is
not regarded anywhere by anybody as
having any value. The very best that
can BE- said of surety bond is that it is
a right of action, right to sue. With
the right to sue, there necessarily goes
hand in hand the right and the possi-
bility of losing the suit-principal, inter
est and all.
In addition to all Of that. surety
companies seldom ever pay any sort Of
claim, without first having worn the
thing out in the State and Federal
courts They employ the very best law
yers to be had. who take advantage OF
every conceivable technieality in order
to avoid liability. and 20 nullify the very
purpose for which the bond was given
i do not share with others the view
that our duty to the State u fully per
formed when we accept any sort Of
security. which the act happened TO say
MAY BE- taken do not believe ve
can hide ourselves behind the verbiage
OF the act. and shield ourselves from our
moral Obligation To the p-OPls, Who
elected IS to offies and to whom Ne are
responsible for cur Official aets. BY plead
ing a compliance with the terms OF the
act, ami that our responsibility ensis
there. Aside from h~iging about nv
boudsnen with a sap@rabunGtznex %
proteetioa- l am zOinx 20 DO everything
within nv power TO protect the tsxp4y-
ers from in-. Until every re-ourcs
known 10 the ingenuity Of m4a has hsrn
exhausted bv n. N . fzfthfai snsl<zvor
to prevent los TO the STATE. we eannos
uo--sbIv h~ ah-ofvssi from tk~ great
rr<pansibslty wAieh re-ts upoa Us
lit xiH take nothiax shsrt - Al or'ier
from the Supr~m> Coart 20 x~t the pub
b. money out Of my hazas e q szrsty
bond"