New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-01-01
NEW ORLEANS REPUBIIOAN SUNDAY JANUARY ! 81

! L
| l2l and I27 of the constitution Of 1864; b,
cause fhe grantees have not complied vii
any of ne conditions of the third sectio
Of said act, by which Neglect the
have forfeited every right they may hay
had. Because the act of 1865 Aforesaid wa
repealed by the act of 1867, hereinbefor
scited, the petition charges that the Stat
will suffer damages If defendants are per
Iaitted TO go on, and concludes with
prayer for an Injunction againstthem. tn,
| writ issued, the case was tridd upon ii
merits, and the question is whether the in
] junction shall be made perpetuA.
The grantees aforesaid iOrgaHzed them
selves into body corporate, by kotarial ac
passed March %, 1866, offered ii evidence
The corporation was styled the Louisians
and Texas Canal Company, AID became
the transferee of such rights as the aiore-
said defendants had or have IiHler the act
of 1865, as aforesaid.
To the petition of the State tle defend,
ants answered and were joined y the Lou
isiana and Texas Canal CompaIf, now the
real defendants in interest. TIE answer
details at length the facts heeinsbove
stated and aversth validity of he grant
of April 4, 1865, the uncOnstitutiuality of
the act of March ID, 1867, purportng to re-
peal said grant, and the compliaIte on the
part of the grantees with the requirements
of the third section of the law of los. Con-
siderable evidence was takenion trial
with the view to showig the
commencement of work upn the
canal. and the effect upon the Iant sold by
the State which its construction would
have.
1t has been repeatedly declared by the
highest courts in the land, that grant
made by Legislature, acting within it's
constitutional limitations, forms a Ontract
between the State and tho granee. A
grant, in its own nature, amounts an ex-
tinguishment of the right of the FantOr,
and implies contract not to reassrt that
right. A party is therefore always etopped
by its own grant. kCOoley's Constitutional
Limitations, 274).
If the act approved April 4, 1865, slthor-
izing the defendants to eonstrlit the
canal in question, and selling I'd them
the public lands contiguous tkreto.
was constitutional and valid, and if te de-
PENDANTS had complied with the toms of
the law, then the act of March ID, III, is
unconstitutional as impairing the bliga-
tiOns of contract.
In this suit the State insists that II act
of 1865 is in conflict with article liz d the
constitution of 1864. That article prohibited
the Legislature from granting aid t2com-
panies or associations of individuals, acept
to charitable associations, and to sucisom-
for the exclusive purpose of making vrks
OF internal improvement, etc, The
law did not violate that article.
The preamble OF the act of March 10,
1867, declared as aforesaid, that the lay of
1865 violates article ~ Of the constitution
OF 1864, and the Statt now urges such no..
lation. That article declares that ''noni of
the lands granted b. Congress to the Safe
OF Louisiana for aiding in constructing he
Il -. "a
swamp and overlooked lands of the Site,
shall be diverted rom the purposes for
which they were grnted."
The public land sid TO those defendants
Is swamp land, Which was given to he
State by act of Congress- in 1919, upon On
ditiOn that it should be used for draining
and levee purpose. Such land is NV
offered at the State Land OfEe |
to those who ehooe to enter it at ae
dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. II |
can not zee whereinthe sale made to thee |
grantees violates tn condition of the graf |
from the United Staes to the State. Tie |
evidence shows, i'll can judge, that IL |
construction of the lanai would drain all |
open up to cOmmere an immense tract q /
swamp and OverhOved land now inaecess |
BILE. The prOceeds to be realized by tk |
sale are not destihd by the law to an
other purpose than those prescribed in I'll
lcU OF uOnaIlOn DIV congress.
The State furtheEuggests that the act
1865 was in ViOlatio of article one hundrd
and twenty-one Ofthe aforesaid constita
ton, which prohibited the Legislature fred
creating cOrporatiOH by special laws, ed
cept for political Ornunicipal purposes.
The objection void be good if such an a6l
tempt had been mad, but it was not. The LAW
did not form a corporate body out Of the sit
grantees, but dealtgith them as individuS
ais. Indeed, the Site Institutes this suit
against them personally, and as members Of
the corporation aftrward formed, before 4
rotary public, undf the general laws of the
State.
/ conclude thatihe act approved Aprif
!, 1865, making thegrant and sale to those
was, hCTever wise OF unwise,
valid law, and fOfteO contract betweeH
5he State and theIn-a contract whose oblf
CATION could not be impaired by aEsubsd
luent statute.
By the third sectOn Of the act aforesaid
he defendants wTe bound to commend
heir canal within four months after tl1
,lose of the war, AID to complete the sam
within three yearsthereafter.
The Supreme Curt of the United State
las authOritativek determined the late
.he close of the rebellion. That tate
liked as August 3, 1866, the date of I'll
inal proclamatioBf the President Unite
States VS.. Ahdersol Wallace, Soy. A
The evidence taAen herein shows hat til
engineer of the Company, with hi assis
lnts, began surysy of the line of ue cana
IN the twenty-sgenth of April, S66, an
inished July 1, B66. Immediately alta
yard, workmen ware sent down I'D exc
'atlons were begu preparatory j putin
N dredge boats.
The several witnesses svar tbs
It the time the work cnmencf
Is Aforesaid, the company III cred
md was about TO close vii certaH
contractors to Construct the CAM but that
he passage of the joint resoluti9 in Marth
sos, directing the Attorney GENIAL to Inc
ute proceedings against the defidants, / a
'aired that credit iand caused le suspi Il.
ion Of the work. Three years I've elaps M
md the canal hm not been bit; but f.
tate can not now 3vail itself that ID st
o annul the graft made "a atlesaid.
las been seen, tH Legislatuti In Mari
e61; assumed TO npeal the acpf 1865,
horizing the construction Of Z canal, q NJ
he work was stopped aiSssther. "a 7
tate has no more right take
-antage of Its own moneitthan
n Individual from these eIeral cbA
alterations I haYs concluded 1T the si
4 the State Of Louisiana SD. i be "a c
missed, that tlR Injunction Elm ISIS ad
hould be dissolsed and set q !, and t
here should be Judgment i1rfor Of We 4
and against the .e of YsIl
sianas In aecnHlance with thb aver Of tao :
nswer made u said defenda
Clerks ofiee Eighth Disttg Court iur
he parish of ofleans. IN
A true copy
R. LYNNE. nlosy Clet
The unezsmpled sale ofthf Jed Fa q
'ayorite sewinr MaebinEi npdl