New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-18

established under . general law. l cannot
consent to sign the bill, however, because it
provides that the State shall guarantee the
principal and interest upon one million, five
hundred thousand dollars Of bonds to he
issued by the company.
Aside from the constitutional objection
which will urge, l think this an unwise
measure. There can be no reason given
why the State of Louisiana should indOrse
commercial paper to be issued by the gen
tlcmen who desire to form this company, in
order to set them up in an ordinary business.
In the past the State has properly granted
subsidies and loaned its credit to ccrpor
ations organized to carry out important
works Ut internal improvement and public
utility. Such aid was given upon the as
sumption that the entire State would he
benefited and enriched, and thereby the
taxation diminished; but this is a private
enterprise, calculated to enrich the stock
holders in the concern.
1t is true that the work proposed may
''promote commerce" by furnishing better
warehouse facilities than the city Of New
Orleans now has: but this is no more a legiti-
mate object of State aid than every i'm
proved cotton press or corn crib throughout
the State.
When the bill first reached me, supposed
il provided for the States Endorsement Of
three hundred thousand dollars Of bonds;
but upon examining section four, l find
that the capital stock is fixed at three hun
bred thousand dollars, which. however.
may be increased to five times that amount
by vote Of the Stockholders. Subsequent
sections provide that bonds may be issued
to the amount of the capital stock, and that
after certain security has been furnished.
the Governor shall indOrsc upon such bends
that the State guarantees to the holders
thereof the payment Of principal and in
terest.
This is not good business transaction on
its face. If the company could furnish
good enough security to justify the State in
indorsing its paper, it ought to be able to
borrow the money it needed, and which it
proposes to raise upon the credit OF tine
State.
But the State has no adequate security.
That to be furnished may be worthless long
before the bonds mature. the warehouse
company may fail, and the State would
have to pay the debt.
The Legislature is prohibited by the con-
stitution from mourning this liability. At
the last general election an amendment was
adopted providing that prior to 1880 the
debt of the State shall not be SO increased
as ~ cACccu tWcutN -llNC VI NoiAtAiS -
An examination of the financial reports
of the Auditor and Treasurer, will disclose
the fact that this limit has been already
reached. We now have n debt OF S25OoO,-
600. We can not increase that debt with
out violating the constitution. 1t may he
urged that an Endorsement by the State of
bonds to be issued by n private corpora
ton will not create debt of the State! l
think otherwise. Such an Endorsement is
an absolute guarantee of payment,
both as to principal and interest. AS
guaranty. it is contract having
for it's consideration the public good to be
expected from the aid thus given. Such Il
contract forms an irrevOcable obligation of
the State. and must be estimated among
her liabilities. If my Interpretation is
wrong. then the constitutional limitation to
which l call yOur attention is useless and
meaningless. 1t was adopted in order to
check the increase of the public debt at Il
point beyond which it can not be sustained
without ruinous taxation. Certainly We
can not issue State bonds or borrow money
by other means exceeding the prescribed
limit, but this prccaution will be useless if
the State is to continue to incur liabilities
by engaging to pay interest and princi pal
upon millions Of bonds nominally issued by
others. but depending for their market
value entirely upon such State guaranty.
Past experience should satisfy you that
such an Endorsement is. in most instances.
equivalent to an orig inal and unconditional
obligation to pay.
II. G. WARMOTH,
Governor of Louisiana.
And put the question. Will the House, upon
d reconsideration. agree to pass the bill. the
veto of the Governor to the contrary not.
outstanding
The roll was called with the following
result:
Yeas: Ahell, Adolphe, Antoine. Barker,
Barrett, Rcl6t. Blunt. Bowen. Brow II. Barch,
Butler. Cochran, Crawford. Darby. Dar;ns-
burg, Davis, Demas. Devices. Durio, Faux
ncr. Floyd. Fontelieu, Gaddis. Gardner,
Garstkamp, p. Harper, W. Harper. Hemp
stead, Huston, Johnson, Kearson. kenner,
La Saliniere. Laurent, II. Lott, J. Is.
Lott, Lynch. Mahoney, Marie, Marvin. Mat
thews, McCarty, Moore, Morphy, Morris,
Murray. Ong, Ovcrton. Quinn, Raby. Riley,
RinggOld. Sartain. Smith. Soucr. Stamps,
Stanton. Tounoir. Ullman. Eerrett, Wash
ington, Of Assumption. Washington. OF Con
cordia. Waters, Wheyland. +. Williams.
H. Williams. Wilson, Worrall. Yorke,
YOung-70.
Nays: Baker, Bickham, Brewster, Bryan.
Buckingham. Chachere, Davidson, Ellis,
Hyams, MOncure, Nelson, Oplatek. Otto
Pond, Schumacher. Tatman, Thompson
Wands-l9.
The veto was not sustained.
The Speaker also laid the following veto
before the House:
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Executive Department.. ;
New Orleans, March ! 1871. }
TO the Honorable President and Members of the
Senate
Herewith return. without my approval.
an act entitled an act making appropriation
to pay Simeon Bclden. Attorney General,
for collection of State taxes in tie parishes
Of Orleans and jefferson.
The gentlemen of tie General Assembly
could not have carefully considered this
bill, or it would certainly never have
passed both houses.
This officer claims $50 900 as percentage
allowed him by section 1873 of the Revised
Statutes.
He alleges that he collected all of the
money paid after the decision of the Sill
preinc Court. in the case of Frellsen VS.. F..
c. Mahan, Tax Collector. Now. what is
the language of the section under which
he makes his claim! Section l3S is as fol
lows: 1.-The Attorney General shall receive
five per cent on all amounts collected by
him. etc. This does not mean five per
cent on all amounts involved in litigation
where the State is party. Suppose a lot
Of land or movable property was in litisa-
ton between the State and an individual.
and the suit should be won by the State,
would it be asserted that the Attorney Gen
cral should receive five per cent fees on the
assessed value of the property recovered?
Most certainly not. The law was intended
to compensate the Attorney General for
prosecuting suits against persons who were