The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1869-09-08

limited or Altered Dy statutory VI Sousti-
tutional provisions. This, we hold, is
now the case in Louisiana as regards obli-
CATIONS of every form, which have been
entered into for the payment Of the price
of slaves. Art 1913 of the Constitution is
couched in clear and unambignous Ian
guage. In the face OF the para
mount authority, so plainly entlnciated,
can the Courts of this State enforce con-
tracts which it reprobates, whether the
holder of the obligation is in good Or bad
faith, or Il holder before or after maturity?
The positive prohibition of Art. 12S makes
no exception in favor of one class of hold
ers over another. Its meaning
is that all contracts for the sale of persons
purpose of Art. 1913 to be clear and with
ont doubt, and that that purpose is, that
the contracts which it reprobates shall be
null in whose hands soever they are found,
and that the Courts are forbidden to en-
force them, whether held by owners bona
jfdc, or mala .fde, and without reference to
the time they acquired them.
BY the decision in the case of wainwright
VS.. Bridges, 10 An. 234, followed by many
decisions affirming it, it was fully settled
that contracts for the payment of the price
of slaves were null, and that the Courts
could not enforce them. These decisions
were the settled law of the State before
| the adoption of the Constitution of 1861
There was then no call for the insertion
Of Art. 1913, if the trainers of the organic
law did not intend to assert more broadly
the doctrine of the wainwright case than
was announced in that decision. y
| We accept that article as being clear and
explicit on the subject, and as necessarily
overriding the case of the Canal Bank VS..
Templeton, 30 An. 14l, decided before the
adoption of the Constitution.
Judgment of the District Court therefore
affirmed.
! JUDGE HOw's DISSENTING OPINION.
Judge Howe dissented in an extended
opinion, from which we condense as fol
lows, giving the main points of his argu
mcnts:
1t is true that the conssdcra
ton or cause of the contract, between tho
makers and payce, was the sale of slaves
and this Court would decline t.
enforce the note as between the orgina
parties. But it by no means fol
lows that the contract between the ina
kers of the note in suit and the plaintiff il
q contract for the sale of persons, or tina
the sale of persons had any legal connec
ton whatever with it,
On tho contrary l apprchend that thu
contract between the makers of the not
in suit and the plaintiff was that of the &C
eeptor of bill drawn by Burgess, the sec
ond endorser, upon the defendants, in ia
vor of the plaintiffs, in payment for half
drug store. I betieve all writer's agree il
this view-that the indorscr of q note ma
be looked upon as the drawer of q ney
= bill, the indorser as the payee thereof, an
I the original maker of the note as the az
eeptor, and this is essentially now COT
tract. l2 M. 1873, and cases there cited
La. 49S; IL Il. 497 80 M. l94. If, there
fore, to give judgment for the plaintiff i
this case, would be to enforce any contrac
u Of sale, it would be a contract for the sal
: of half drugstore, and not for the sale {
persons.
1t is true that the law may declare
note void even in the hands of an innocer
t indorser, though the spirit of modern ci
ilization is opposed to such enactments.,
And if Art. 125 of the Constitution decla
ed that notes like the one in suit shou
be void in the hands of party like I'll
It plaintiff, could not urge the views abo,
expressed. But it does not SO declare.
declares the Rullity of contracts for Il
sale of persons. 1t embedsin fundament
law, the doctrine Of wainwright VS.. Bridge
5. q suit between the original parties to
slave note. But must confess my inab
ity to see how, either directly or by imp
cation, it forbids the enforcement of a hi
drawn in favor of theplaiutitf in this cas-
D. in consideration of the sale of one half OF
drug store, and, in the eye of the law, a
copied by defendants.
Quoting the decision in Canal Bank ,
Templeton, 20 An. al, at length, JUDI
10 Howe continues:
&C This decision was rendered in Feb. 1SG
prior to the adoption of the present Co
stitution; but shall it be said that t
Judges who rendered it, thereby enforc
"a contract for the sale of PERSONS" al
- that they should have gone on enforci
" such contracts if they had not been chez
~ ed by Art. 12S of the now Constitution
3 trust not. must still believe that t
Constitutional provision does not apply
tho case at bar.
Grant that the contract between t
ID. maker and payce of the note in suit W
without consideration, or grant that
consideration was immoral and unjus
grant that this consideration and this CT
ed tract have been swept away; still I'll
ID other agreement by the bill drawn up'
CT them by the plaintiff, remains iihtouch
,e- Its consideration, the half Of a drug sto
he was lawful. and it ought to be enforced
nj If this theory of the case be deemed t;
ciful, it may be laid aside without inju