New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1858-03-09

!
sueh acts as this extension BILL why not also have
subjected the Bankto Article los in the same per-
emptory manner II is done by refusing the right to
pass any act to relieve revive the Bank in con-
aict with Articles 1fs and 100? The inference is
irresistible II because 1t was thought advisable to
leave this point discretionary with the Legislature,
so far as this Bank is concerned.
As regards tie argument that the absence in the
constitution of 1859 of provision giving the State
" The right 10 Issue new bonds in payment Of its out-
standing obligations, or 70 extend old Ones is con-
casye Of the intention Of the trainers Of that consti
rution to refuse that right to the State i Is based on
no legal grounds and is in direct opposition to the
true intendment Of the Legislative power Of the State
as sanctioned by our Supreme Court. The Legis-
atufe Of this sate,s says the Court in Bozant
Campbell. unlike the Congress Of the United
States which can do nothing that the Federal Con-
q stitusion does not authorize, may exercise any
" power not prohibited by the State Constitution"
This power, therefore, need not be mentioned in
the constitution If not prohibited, the Legislature
has The right to exercise it.
1t is in consequence Of such a principle that the
same Court has 50 often decided that acquired rights
and existing contracts, (such as that between the
State and the stockholders Of the Bank cannot be
ducNtcu W ouuociuChb Uut tudt III Itla-
ton TO remedies necessary carry out the object OF
such contracts different principle applies, and the
Legislature may modify them.
In this case there is no violation Of the contract
on the part Of the Bank, no violation on the part Of
the Slate of any prohibtve clause Of the Constitu
ton The original contract is adhered to by the
Bank and in order to enable it to perform its obi
cations towards all its stockholders the State affords
the remedy which it is in its power to give. The
only prohibitions are the subscribing to stock, to
making loan pledging its faith. 1t cannot be
said, seriously, that any such thing is demanded by
the Legislature We do not ask the State to grant
US any new pledge of its faith We do not even wish
to subject her to the trouble of issuing new bonds.
ALI ask is TO authorize the Board OF Directors to
enter into negotiations with the present holders of
the State bonds, due in 1862 to extend these denti
cal bonds by endorsement otherwise, for term Of
twenty-five years. II the bondholders refuse to ex-
tend the said bonds, there is end to the matter,
and the liability Of the State win cease The bond
holders are, therefore, the umpreswe ask the State
| to consent to leave the decision with them.
| But 1t has been graveIy asserted that different
state Of facts might appear, and different concn-
sion be maintained, Il the Bank was unable to pay
and the State was compelled to provide the means of
paying security debt.a We cannot subscribe to
any such doctrine. If it be violation Of the Con.
stitution extend s50oOOo OF the State bonds merely
because the Bank has the means Of paying them, it
is equally a violation to extend them because she
could not pay. The condition ofsthe Bank touches
the question of expedency, but has nothing whatever
| TO do with the constitutional question.
Now, few words more as to the "revival OF the
! charter How can that be considered as revived in
full when SIG stockholders out Of $50 deprived of
the vested rights to which the charter entities them
1 Had the Bank the means Of paying the bonds and
| giving the loan besides, it would not have been
/ deemed expedient" to appeal TO the Legislature;
but as the stockholders have furnished the security
for the whole 900 600, for which the faith Of the
State was, and is pledged to them, they now claim
on the equity and justice Of the State in ahordng
them equal rights while it holds their property under
mortgage for nearly S 100000 more than required
by the charter; and SO far from their wishing the
State Constitution Violated for their benefit they only
ask her to fulfill small portion of the condition
which is contained in the LIST section of the act Of
soth January, 1856 We think, on the contrary that
the constitution would be violated in letter and spirit
in thus divesting them of rights acquired sixteen
years before its adoption, and to which they were
reinstated by article i2lleavng it. by same clause
deem II expedent to relieve the Bank, provided the
Bank subject to the restrictions contained in articles
! I19 ana 120 OF this constitution
This lien to the State, without the benefit Of the
loan is injurious to their property. IL they did not
take the money previous to 1912 it is reason why
they should be debarred from it now, while the State
holds the security which they furnished upon the faith
\ of the State agreeing to place the means with the
y a. "a q
speculation at the expense of their feowcitizc
They pay the prinepaland interest Of their debt and
divide the profits with the State.
It is commended, also, that the renewal of these
State bonds would nure the credit of the State and
be unjust towards the holders of other bonds that II
these bonds be pnnctually paid off in 1859 this would
create a demand for our State bonds. Let us pro
coed to show the falacy of this argument The six
per cent State bonds are worth ninety per cent in
the principal money markets of Europe, while the five
per cent State bonds issued to the Bank due in
1859, 1868, 1877. and 1856, are selling at par in Am
serdan at the last dates If, therefore, the holder
Of these bonds prefer the State bonds thus issued tc
the Citizens Bank, and bearing only FIVE per cent.
to the States own bonds at higher rate of interest
they ask the privilege of continuing the said bonds fo
twenty-five years. IT, out of the 81 2l9OO0 Of STATE
bonds loaned to them, due in 1859, they pay s7l9
900 and extend the other 100000. they neithe
nlure their iellow.citzeps nor any one else; WHILE
the bondholders would agree to this extension it can
not be pretended that these $50O00O thus going int
general circulation will not be beneficial to our Who'll
: community.
!. To resume we believe we have clearly demon
stated by the charter of 1885, by the act of 1852
wing the bank and by Articles los and 12l of tn
constellation that the anncation of the stoekholder