New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-24

company will be entitled to demand tn
! bonds OF the State for sl26,000, and whe
: issued, it will not be denied, the bonds wi
form part of the deb, of the State Blu
when and how was the debt created 1t j
clear 10 was created by the act of the Legi:
Iature in 1869. The law on this subject
the same in the other States of this Union
: "A party bound by either an express or al
: implied contract, in virtue whereof he ma.
become liable to the payment of money
debtor, although his liability be cOntln
. gent" ) Barb, 40; IS Mend, @5, 1856;
J COwen, 81; 8 Cowen, 427, and Greene, l95
The reasoning of Chief Justice Miller seems
t conclusive:
The objection is that Van Wyck wa
not a creditor of Seward at the date of tn
deed. because il was then uncertain
whether he would ever have cause OF &C
ton on the covenant Let us see where
this doctrine would carry us. If one prom
Use to pay money at future day, he only
: PAYS before the credit expires, and until tina
time arrives, il is uncertain whether an &C
ton will ever accrue on the promise The
contract of surety only creates a contin
gent liability. Until the principal is in de
fault. il is uncertain whether an action viii
ever accrue against the surety. The draw
er of a bill OF exchange is only bound t.
pay il upon a contingency which may never
happen; and so it is with the indOrser OF
negotiable paper of all kinds. The con.
tract of indemnity is another case where
an action may never accrue upon the I'm
! dertaking."
In these and all other cases depending
npOn contract, the person with whom the
| engagement is made is as much creditor,
| within the meaning of the statute as though
! he had debt on which a right of action
already existed.
Did the appropriation made in favor of J.
| q. Nixon create a debt against the State, or
was it a recognition OF a debt existing
! prior to the constitutional amendment, and
unaffected by it!
The preamble to the act recites that
Whereas, The State of Louisiana. by
act of March -, 1866 and by her contract
with James o. Nixon as public printer.
agreed to pay him in cash. monthly. certain
rates and prices for public printing by him
to be executed and. whereas. said Nixon
executed his bond for ten thousand dollars
TO the State for the faithful performance of
| his duties as public printer; and, whereas,
the State paid him only part in cash, and
the remainder in warrants, which he was
compelled to receive or get nothing at ALL
and, whereas, to comply with his engage
ments to the State he was compelled to sell
these warrants at various and heavy dis
counts; and. whereas, the good faith of the
State requires that it should make good the
losses incurred" etc.
1t appears from these recitals that the
State had settled with j o. Nixon in full
for the work done by him as public printer.
and that his necessities compelled him to
sell at a discount his warrants received in
the settlement. If instead Of the State il
had been private individual who had con-
tracted with Nixon, and who had given him
his note in settlement, could Nixon have
enforced his claim for losses in consequence
of fln 10 Of h., -
After the settlement aforesaid, and the sale
OF the warrants, the State did not owe
Nixon but the holder of the warrants.
Therefore the act No. 81, if valid, necessa-
rily created debt.
But it is contended by the REALTORS that
the appropriation does not create debt.
because the money is presumed to be in
the treasury This raises the very serious
question whether or not the Legislature can
make appropriations unless there be money
to meet the warrants authorized thereby.
either actually In the treasury or provided
for by the revenue bill. The power of an
preparation Is the right to apply to public
purposes money in the treasury. Article
IOi OF the constitution declares mo money
shall be drawn from the treasury but in
pursuance OF specific appropriations made
by law"
An appropriation is an authorization TO
moneys then deposited. If, therefore. the
revenues be inadequate to meet the interest
OF the public debt, and the current expenses
OF the necessary State agencies to preserve
the government, an appropriation whereby |
the liabilities of the State are increased for |
any other purpose than the support and
maintenance Of the machinery Of govern |
ment, Is debt, within the meaning of the |
amendment, which declares |
A he firs n Of t.
the debt of the State shall not be so in
creased as to exceed twenty-five millions of
dollars
1t is further contended that the prohibi
ton III the constitutional amendment is IN
operative until the Legislature shall pro
vide by law how to carry it into effect.
And the case of Grooves VS.. Slaughter, re-
ported in ID Peters 4i9, is relied on to sun
port the position. The case is wholly inap-
picable. That there are provisions OF the
which require legislative action
% carry them into full operation can not
De doubted, but it is equally certain that
here are other provisions of the constitu-
ION which are effective, independently of
he action of the General Assembly.
This amendment does not require legisla-
ion to be operative. 10 Bart. 60 and IS8.
t is a check upon the General Assembly
tselt, and its efficacy is Independent of their
legislative will. The proper way for the
legislature to give effect to this amend
nent, is not to pass laws for its enforce
1ent, but to refrain from enacting laws in
rotation of its commands.
The evidence shows that the revenues of
he State are inadequate to the expendi
ures. we are therefore constrained to
eclare that the act entitled IAN act for ;
ne relief of James o. Nixon. late pubIic
rinter, passed by the General Assembly i
the State of Louisiana, on the first day
March, 1871, is unconstitutional, null and
old
1t is therefore ordered, adiudged and ,,
ecreed that the judgment of the District >
ourt be affirmed, with costs of appeal. :
The State ex rel. Samuel Smith q Co. VS..
le Board of LiquidatOrs of the Floating
ebt OF the State.-This case, and the
yeral cases OF J. l.. and Z. H. Levy, John /
lein and Jules Blanc VS.. the same. involve 9
he obligation of the board of liquidators I
exchange State bonds ISSUED for the Dur II
Jse OF taking up the floating debt of the 0
.ate) Tor certificates of Indebtedness at tbe u
tie OF one hundred dollars in bonds for t;
venty dollars in Indebtedness. a
The plaintiffs applied to the Eighth Dis II
lct Court for writ Of mandamas to com (
i the board of liquidators. through the d
seal Agent OF the State, to issue to them u
-, 600 in bonds for Sl65,O0O Of certificates. g
The rule was dismissed bv the judge of Il
e Eighth District Court, and the plaintiffs,
'pcaled.
Justice Taliaferro, in delivering the L
'lhon IN the above case, holds that in the 81
atter OF issuing bonds for certificates it a.
as SIMPLY Il matter of discretion on the hi
lft o1 the members Of the board, mas
uc4 as they were assailed on all sides st
'he parties demanding bonds in cx- N
ange Tor certificates. This being the b'
~