Year: 1874

Our people will be gratified to
learn that the case Of Self rs. Jcn>
kins, State Treasurer, has been
heard before Chief Justice Waite,
and that his decision has been made
in favor of the State. The argu-
ment upon which the decision is
based does not touch the matter OF
the constitutionalitv Of the bonds,
but relies entirely upon the fact
that the Treasurer was compelled
to disburse the interest collected
for the Special Tax bonds because
he was SO required by the Legisla-
ture. We give below the closing
portion of the decision:


The immediate question for our deter.
mination, therefore, is, not whether the
State should provide the means and require
the Treasurer to replace this fund, but
whether it has SO done. When the order to
use the $150.000 was made, the Treasurer
was authorized TO replace it out of the first
money which came into the Treasury by
way of dividends or taxes When that Of
the $500, 900 was ordered, he was authorized
to replace it from dividends and taxes for
general purposes The Revenue Act OF
1871, however, expressly prohibited him
from using for that purpose any money col
lected under its authority. The acts OF 1878
and 1874 do not contain any such prohibi-
ton, but they each direct that the taxes
levied shall be applied to defray the expen.
ses of the State government, and to pay ap-
propriations for charitable and penal insttu-
tions. This is the statement of the special
object to which the taxes ars to be applied
required to be made in every law levying
taxes, and the Constitution expressly pro
hibits their application TO any other. While,
therefore, the law does not prohibit the re-
endorsement of the special tax fund out OF
the money raised under its authority, the
Constitution does. The expenses on account
of which the money was taken from the fund
have already been paid with the money OF
the State. IL is true, the money paid ought
not to have been SO used, but il was none
the less on that account the money of the





the money still remained in the Treasury
compel its application to the payment OF
the interest on their bonds, but until 50
applied it did not become their property, and
remained that of the State


1t is not claimed that there is now anv
money in the Treasury except that which
has been collected from taxes levied under
the Revenue Laws of 1873 and 1874, and it
&c al IN ind H., =, I.
which requires, or even authorizes, the
Treasurer to reimburse the special fund
from that The State may be under obli-
cation 10 provide for such reimbursement.
but the State and the Treasurer occupy
different positions. The State is the debtor
and bound by its pledge of faith to provide
means and pay its debts. The Treasurer il
but an agent of the State, and bound only
to pay its debts when required to do so by O
valid law. If such law exists and he re,
fuses to act, proper court will by D'GndaJaut
compel him to perform his duty. Ii he
threatens to divert money appropriated fol
tbe payment of debt, on proper applica-
tion, he may be restrained But to auhor-
iZe interference in either case it must clear.
lyappear that he wrong fully refuses to
execute valid law which has been enacted
by the legislative department for his guild
ance. The court cannot make laws for him.
1t can only compel him to execute such as
have been made.


As there is therefore no money in the
Treasury which the Treasurer is authorized
or required by any existing law 10 appro
pirate for the reimbursement of the specia
tax fund, we cannot restrain him from pay.
ing out the funds in his hands until tht
reimbursement has been made. The princi
pal in this case cannot be reached through
the agent now before the Court


The bill is dismissed with costs.


The other cases between the same par
ties fall under the principle of the above
opinion. and are also dismissed with costs.