The Louisianian. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1870-1871, 1871-04-27

MIR. Kilshaw is banker, and is en-
gagged in trading in securities of this
kind. The warrant is payable to the
order of Isaac. and is in the usual form
in which such obligations are issued, and
is signed by the Auditor. There is no
question as to the commences of the
warrant, nor as to its form. He knew
Mr.. Graham's signature we'll In pur-
chasing, the only other thing he had to
satisfy himself about was whether the
person offering to sell the warrant was
the person in whose favor it was issued.
He demanded references on this point,
and the Canal Bank and neighboring
broker We're referred to, and the latter
identified MIR. Isaac. There is no ques-
ton but that Mr.. Isaac, to whom the
warrant was made payable, was the
identical person who sold the warrant to
Mr.. Kilshaw At the time of the pur-
chase no notice had been given that the
payment Of the warrant had been stop
ped. Such notice was not given until
the thirty-frst of August, fifteen days
after the purchase, and the price paid for
the warrant was eighty-fve cents ON the
dollar-only few points below the
quotable price of such securities, which
difference Mr.. Maybin says is common.
What more could have been required Of
Mr.. Kilshaw had he applied to the Audi
tor to know whether this warrant was
genuine, or predicated on a good consid-
Grafton on the day he purchased? The
answer would have been in the affirm
ative, as MIR. Graham says his suspicious
were aroused as to the genuineness of
the coupons two. or three days afterward.
Are there any grounds for suspicion, that
Mr.. Kilshaw did not, in this matter &C
quire this warrant in perfect good faith
and without any circumstance that ought
to have created any suspicion that the
consideration for which the warrant was
given was not good? If there is we
have been unable to detect it.
If, then, the proper officer of the State,
the Auditor, issues a warrant on the
State Treasurer, in proper form, and
payable to order, and that warrant is
sold by the payee on the day it issued to
a person who dealt in such paper, with
out any circumstance calculated to
awaken the purchasers suspicion as to
the genuineness of the consideration, it
seems to us that it creates strong
equitable obligation on the State to pay
the warrant; that the action of the State
authorities is issuing such evidence of
State indebtedness, although they did so
in error, or were deceived, when an in
nocent person becomes the purchaser of
such obligation in good faith, it behooves
the State to protect the purchaser, and
the State cannot, in god faith, refuse to
do SO.
The effect of such refusal would be to
impair the credit Of the State in creating
distrust in her good faith. As long as
she is unable to pay her matured debt,
the holders of the evidence thereof are
compelled to go into the market and sell
the same. If a purchaser in good faith
of such indebtedness can be defeated in
collecting it, because it may be discerned
that the consideration was
not genuine, then few persons will be
willing to take the risk, and if they pur-
chase at all will require greater discount
to cover the risk, and in that may
seriously injure the public credit and the
creditors OF the State. 1t is, in our
opinion, the true interest of the State to
pay all equitable claims, and even when
there is reasonable doubt on the SUBJ
ject to pay the claim. Nothing is more
detrimental to the true interests of
State than the reputation of an equitable
claim.
Whether, under the circumstances of
this case, a legal obligation, if it was
between individuals, to pay exists, We do
not deem it necessary to discuss. As the
State cannot be sued, the presumption
always being that the State will not stand
on legal technicalities, but viii do equity
in all cases.
Your committee, therefore, respectfully
the passage Of this bill.
JOHN RAY,