
    The State of South Carolina, vs. John H. Harrison. The same vs. George Seaborn.
    
      The Legislature may constitutionally impose a rate of interest, higher than the rate generally established, on tax collectors who fail to pay over public monies in their hands, at the times required by lavs.
    
      This increased interest is not in the nature of a penalty; and the sureties of tax collectors are liable for the payment of it.
    
    These actions were brought against the defendants as the securities of James M‘DanieI, late tax collector of Greenville district, on the bond for his faithful performance of the duties of that office. The defendants pleaded no plea, and the cases went to the jury on a writ of inquiry. The default alleged against the tax collector was, the not paying over to the treasurer a large amount of money collected for the taxes of Green-ville district, for the year 1821. The act to raise supplies, of December, 1817, requires a,defaulting tax collector to pay fifteen per cent, interest on all monies in his hands, which he neglects to pay over' at the time required by law. And a similar clause is contained in the several tax acts until December, 1822 ,* when the rate was increased. The bond is dated the 4th day of January, 1819. A doubt being suggested by the counsel of the defendants, vvhether the securities could be made to pay interest at the rate of fifteen per cent., the following special verdict was found, by consent, in both cases, viz. “We find for the plaintiff the sum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty-v one dollars eighty-five cents, with interest at the rate of fifteen per cent., from the 3d day of June, 1822, if the court shall he of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to that rate of interest; if not, then vre find for the plaintiff the same sum, with interest at ■the rate of seven per cent, from the same date.
    A motion was now made by the'solicitor, for leave to enter up judgment for the state, for the sum so found by the jury,, with interest at the rate of fifteen per cent., from the third day of June,'1822.'
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice JYott.

The act to which we are now . called upon to give construction is in the following words — “If any fax collector within, this state shall neglect or refuse to make his return, and pay the taxes received by him within the limit prescribed by law, it shall he the duty of the treasurer, and he is hereby required in addition to the coercive power which he now possesses, to -charge the said tax collector with interest at the rate of fifteen per cent., from the time he ought to have made such return, and paid such taxes to the time of such settlement.”

These cases have been submitted to us without argument on the part of the defendants. We are, therefore, uninformed of .the grounds on which they claim exemption from the requisites of the act. The counsel on the part of the state appears to have anticipated two grounds of defence.

1. Th at the Legislature cannot prescribe a different rate of interest,in cases of debts due the state, from those due to individuals.

2. That the fifteen per cent., required by the act to be paid must be considered in the nature of a penalty imposed upon the tax collector for neglect of duty, and, therefore, cannot be extended to his securities.

I have no doubt but that the Legislature are competent to regulate the rate of interest, both with regard to debts due the state and individuals, in any maimer they may think proper; and that they may vary the rates' according to the nature ■ of the debts, without any violation of their constitutional powers. And I have as little doubt that such a distinction might have a salutary influence on the conduct of attornies, executors, and guardians, and all public officers .who neglect to pay over monies in their hands at the times required by law. A want of promptitude in the discharge of those duties is an evil which calls loudly for redress. And in no case can it be more necessary than that of a tax collector, upon whose punctuality the fiscal operations of the government so much depend. I have no doubt, therefore, either of the constitutionality or policy of the measure.

If it was a penalty imposed upon the tax collector for neglect of duty, I should be of opinion it could not be visited upon his securities. But it is only an increased rate of interest which he is required to pay .for the use of money belonging to the public. And whatever he is liable to pay, falls upon his securities in case of his default, by the very nature of their undertaking. And they .can have no cause Of complaint; for they may relieve themselves from the interest at any time, by paying up thé principal. The motion must, therefore, he granted.

Johnson. Cohock, Justices, concurred^  