New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-12-17

NEW ORLEANS, SATURDAY, DECEMBER II, 1870
THIR CoURTs.


THR COURTs.
RisAth District Court.
F. G. Mahan We. the Loan and Pledge
Association.-In this case E. Filleul, acting
as Judge ad hoe, in place of Hon. Fl. Dib-
BILE, recused, has delivered the following
The defendants, the President and Cashier
of the "LOan and Pledge Association" a
corporation created by an act of the Legis-
lature, have been ruled to show cause why
q peremptOry mandamus should not issue,
commenting them to make an estimate of
the profits and losses Of the associations
statement OF all cash paid into the COM
pany, etc.
The relator is stockholder, who states
that he has an interest to have this state
ment made and his duty perfOrmed.s The
article eleven of the charter and the section
five of the bylaws require that such state
ment should be made.
Let a writ of peremptory mandamus
issue, as prayed for, according to law.
The vermilli0n Bay and Texas Land Case.
State ex rel. the Attorney General vs. H.
T. Burgess ct al-In this case Judge Dibble
has rendered q lengthy decision, from which
we extract the following:
By an act of the Legislature, approved
April 4, 1865, Duncan Smith, H. +. Burgess
and r. w. Jones, of Louisiana, and w. G.
Phillips, M. A. SOuthworth and John Han
cock, Of Texas, were authorized to con-
struct railroad canal from Vermillion Bay
| to Texas, through White lake, Mermenteau
lake and Lake Calcasieu, to the Sabine
river. The act granted the right of way,
specified the size OF the canal, and en-
powered the said parties to collect tolls
from vessels navigating the same, and pre-
| scribed other conditions and requirements
| in relation to it's construction and mainte-
nance.
BY the act the State proposed to sell all
unoccupied land belonging to the State
| between said canal, when completed from
| Vermillion bay to Sabine river, and the
| coast of the Gulf of Mexico and the islands
| in the said lakes, and all lands belonging to
| the State on the north side of said canal
within twenty miles of the same. The
| terms of the sale were twenty-five cents per
acre of the land. upon the following terms:
"Said parties shall commence said canal
| within four months after the termination OF
| the present war, and complete the same
| within three years thereafter; but said
| parties may commence and complete any
| portion of the whole of said canal at any
| earlier day, if the condition of the country
shall permit, and shall pay the price due
and owing to the State within ten years
| from the passage OF the act, and ii said
| parties shall fail to commence and complete
|
acre on said funds, they shall forfeit all
| rights under the act to the canal and land,
and the canal and all appurtenances to
| revert to the State at the expiration Of fifty
years."
The State, through the Attorney General,
| for several reasons came in and asked that
| the contract be declared forfeited. Judge
| Dibble decided~that the suit of the State
must be dismissed. and the injunction
/ s~c% <hn cneA Il rnA oyNh
| judgment rendered against the State.
The decision thus concludes:
Three years have elapsed, an9 the canal
| has not been built; but the State can not
| now avail itself Of that fact to annul the
grant made as aforesaid. As has been
| seen, the Legislature, in March, 1867 I.
! assumed to repeal the act of 1865, authOriz-
| ing the construction of the canal and the
work was stopped altogether. A State has
| no more right to take advantage Of its own
wrongs than has an individual.
| From these several considerations, have
| concluded that the suit of the State of
Louisiana is dismissed: that the injunction
| herein issued should be dissolved, and set
aside, and that there should be judgment in
| favor of the defendants and against the
| State of Louisiana, in accordance with the
| prayer of the answer made by defendants.
The Louisiana State Lottery Company VS..
A. Richard ct als.-This injunction suit in
| wolves the constitutionality of the act incOr-
pOrating the Louisiana Lottery Company,
which became q law August IL, 1863 The
defendants are lottery ticket vendors, and
seek to defeat the exclusive right of the
plaintiff to sell tickets. The defendants
urge. among other reasons that the article
fOrty-two OF the constitution was not COM
Piled with in passing the bill; that it was
not read three successive days, etc.
The journals of the House disclose that
the rules were suspended to admit of the
reading. The majority of q quorum can
pass bill, and four-fifths Of a quorum are
enough to suspend the constitutional rules
As to the argument that the law was void,
as creating monopoly. the Supreme Court
held in the Slaughterhouse'c case, that the
Legislature could enact such law, because
not prohibited by the constitution.
The force of the civil rights bill, also
urged in this case, can not be held to pro-
tect lottery ticket vendors.
The farthest application attempted by
MIR. Justice Bradley, was that these prOvi-
sions may he held to protect citizens in the
sacred right to labor. But such labor is un-
derstood as will result in corresponding
benefits to society, the protection Of whose
laws the labOrer seeks.
Lotteries are repugnant to good morals in
view of the rules Of political economy. They
eat the substance Of the community, but
produce nothing. Still the evil exists, and
the policy of prohibiting or regulating it is
whether the legislative control is subject
with which the judiciary has anything
whatever to do. The State might have
passed laws prohibiting the sale Of lottery
tickets, and the Supreme Court of the
United States would boldly set the law
aside as conflicting with the fourteenth
amendment A lottery company exists by
virtue of the law attacked, but it receives
no protection from the civil rights bill.
Judgment will be rendered, making the in
.iuctlOn perpetual, defendants to pay costs.
A like Judgment was also rendered in
similar suit vs.. the Alabama Loan and Aid
Association.
The Perry Fuller Frauds.
sensation dispatch, purporting to give
an account of proceedings in the United
States Circuit Court, Judge Durell, on the
second instant, was published few days
ago in the Northern papers, and republished
by our city contemporaries. Finding no
foundation for the report We failed to NOTICE
the matter in our coy reports, except to
mention the fact that he United States Dis
trict Attorney, Mr.. j. K. Beckwith, had
moved for an alias copios in the Perry Full
Ter case.
Mr.. Beckwith expressed astonishment
that such little spark should have raised
so much smoke. He says there is not a par
ticle Of foundation for the sensational stuff
referred to.
The Metropolitan Police Case-Suit for
Thirty Per Cent Additional Co mpensa.
tiOn-New Trial Refused.
The counsel for a number OF policemen,