Year: 1863

prONlulnS treasury system, ana ltS construction
of tie Constitution and the laws in reference to
the State debt. There was no penalty provided
in that act for the punishment of violations thereof
by the State officers


To make the intendment of the Legislature
more clear in regard to the act of 1859, the Gen.
eral Assembly at its session in 1861 passed what
is generally known as the embezzement law.
We quote two sections from il:


Sec. 3. If the Treasurer of State. any dep
uty or any person in his employ, shall paw out,
or receive, any public money in any other man
ner as prescribed by law, he shall be fined not
less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars,
and be imprisoned in the county prison not less
than one year


Sec. 8. If the Auditor of State shall draw any
amount upon the Treasurer Of State, unless there
be money in the Treasury belonging to the par
ticular fund upon which the same is drawn to pay
the same and in conformity to appropriations
made by law, he shall be deemed guilty of
misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall
be fined in any sum not less than one hundred
dollars and not more than one thousand dollars,
and be imprisoned in the county Jail not less than
one or more than six months.


And to makeclear its meaning of the term Gin
conformity to appropriations made by law" the
Legislature which passed this embezzlement law
to correct the loose manner in which the financial
affairs of the State had been conducted, placed
in the general appropriation bills for 1861 and
1862 the sums necessary to pay the interest
upon the State debt.


At the extra session in 1861 a war loan of
two million was provided for. In the law Great
ing that Indebtedness it was provided that the
first interest warrants, or coupors, shall become
due on the first Of May 1862, and an annual tax
of FIVE cents on each one hundred dollars in value
of the taxable property of the State was levied,
act provides as follows:


"The tax herein provided for the payment of
the interest. and the gradual liquidation of the
principal. shall not be diminished. but the same
shall be levied and collected annually until the
bonds authorized to be issued shall have been
paid or redeemed"


The tax for 1861 was levied and collected. and
placed in the treasury fund to be used
specifically for the payment of the interest on the
war loan. That the Legislature regarded as an
appropriation in pursuance of law, hence no pro



pIiation bills passed at the special session of
1861 for the payment of interest on that debt.
Mark the difference. There was no special tax
provided for or levied to pay the interest upon
the State debt, hence the Legislature regarded it
asnecessary, under the acts Of 1859 and 1861. to
provide for the payment of the interest in the
general appropriation bills, and to conform to
provision of the Constitution. which requires
that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury
but in pursuance of appropriations made by
law"


Where rests the responsibility, then, if any
failure should occur to pay the interest upon the
public debt? 1t is made the duty of the Legisla
ture to provide for and direct its payment. 1t
failed to do so owing to the revolutionary action
of the Republican members of the House. The
Governor has also duty in the matter
The Constitution authorizes him to convene
q special session of the Legislature whenever
in his judgment the public interests may de-
mand it. Certainly that contingency has arisen
if he regards the honor the fair fame and the
plighted faith of the State worth preserving. He
certainly should not ask the State officers TO as
sumo a responsibility which the Legislature has
forbidden under severe penalties, when he has it
clearly within his power to provide a remedy.
The very condition of affairs has arisen which
even the Republican members of the last Legis-
lature anticipated as one of the consequences of
their bolting and they were clearly the opinion
that the State officers had no right to pay the in
terest under the statutes of 1859 and 1861 and so
expressed themselves.


If Governor MoRroN's loose and latitudinarian
construction Of the Constitution and the laws are
to prevail-if the officers of the State are TO be
governed by the "intendment of a legislative
act. or their judgment as to what that "intend-
ment" may be-there will be but little duty for
the Legislature to perform. and it will be un
necessary for it to pass any appropriation bills,
for it is fairly to be presumed that the General
Assembly does not propose to create any debt by
law WITHOUT intending to pay it.


There can be no question but that it is the du'y
of the Governor to exhaust all constitutional
measures to provide for the payment of the in
terest of the State debt, and he has amUle time
to convene the Legislature for that purpose be-
fore the July interest becomes due


If there is any conspiracy to defeat the pay
ment of that Indebtedness whatever, it can Justly
be charged to Governor MORTON and his political
friends in the Legislature, who suggested and
justified the bolt at its last session. that defeated
the appropriation bills in which provision was
made for the payment of the interesr upon the
State debt.


There is one point that Governor MORTON is
careful to conceal. He and his party friends bit.
terly condemned the responsibility assumed by
Governor WILLARD in paying the indebtedness
of the State without appropriations in pursuance
of law Yet they now attempt to Justify their
conduct by quoting the policy of the latter as
safe precedent There is this difference which
Governor MoRroS fails to notice The State
officers under Governor WnLARD's admin
istration could assume responsibility with
out any embezziement act staring them in
the face and its severe penalties That
act was recommended bv Governor MORTON,
and it met his approval, to deter officers from
doing the very acts which he now urges upon
them. Is that fair dealing. is it honest, is it
consistent If His Excelency has no respect for
official integrity himself, he at least, should not
ask the State officers to do that which two years
receive the punishment due that crime He might
require this sacrifice from partisan associates.
but certainly he has no right to demand il from