New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-02-21

| It is contended that as he did not have an
opportunity to perform the work under the
| contract, he should nave the same cOmpen-
| sation as though he had done so. l believe
| this to be the sum and substance of the
| merits of this claim. 1t seems to have
been made in the form of damages
for a violation of the contract, which,
in my opinion, is a proper question
for the determination of the courts. If Mr..
| Nixon had performed his work, he would
have a right, under the contract, to COM
| pensation; but as he has done no work, l
can not conceive why he should receive
| anything from the State. The contract
| was interfered with by the passage of the
| printing law now on the statute books,
which gave the public printing to another
| party. That party performed the work,
| and was not only paid, but overpaid for it;
| and now it is proposed that the State shall
|! pay again for the same work. 1t is true
| that the General Assembly during the last
! session passed a law recognizing the claim
of Mr.. Nixon, and ordering it to be paid;
!! but the Supreme Court has declared the law
| unconstitutional. l understand that this bill
| is intended to remedy a defect which exists
in the original law. The defect in that law
was its uncOnstitutiOnality, and how any
action of ours can cure it l can not for my
Life conceive. The Supreme Court has de-
| cided that the State debt has reached its
constitutional limitation, and it can not be
increased by any act of legislation. If l
am not very much mistaken, this
bill has not been read in the
hearing of the Senate, and perpaps not
one Senator on the floor is aware OF its con-
| tents except it's author and the member of
the Judiciary Committee. Why not nave
| it read and properly considered, in order
that every Senator may understand how
you propose to remedy this constitutional
defect
Mr.. Rav-I think the Senator from Car
roll (Mr. McMillen) has misunderstood the
purport of the bill. During the last ses-
| sion of the General Assembly an act was
passed to pay Mr.. Nixon a certain sum OF
money in settlement of a claim which was
predicated upon a contract which he had
| entered into with the State in 1866. The
terms of that contract were fully and faith
fully carried out, so far as Mr.. Nixon was
| concerned. The State obligated herself to
pay in currency for the printing done under
the contract. When the work under the
contract was about half done, a warrant
was issued in favor of Mr.. Nixon and he
sold it on the market at a discount. This
bill is intended to refund him the difference
between the face of the warrant and
the amount it sold for. The act
passed last session authorized and
directed the Auditor to issue warrants to
meet this claim. He refused to do so, on
the ground that the constitutional limit to
the State debt had been reached, and the
Supreme Court decided that inasmuch as
no special provision had been made to pay
the claim by taxation or otherwise, 1t con
stituted a general debt OF the State and
could not be paid, as it came within the
purview of the constitutional amendment
The object of this bill is to authorize the
Auditor to pay the amount out OF the cur
rent funds in the treasury. There was no
decision of the Supreme Court as to the
Justice of the claim. 1t comedies to the
Legislature the right to make an appropria-
ton for any purpose it pleases, if it does
not increase the State debt beyond twenty
five millions.
Mr.. McMillen-I am obliged 10 the Sen
ator from Ouachita INF. Ray for correct
ing me in regard to the facts OF the case.
My statement was made entirely from mem.
orv. This, then, is a claim for discount sui
tered, and is one of a numerous brood OF
claims Of the same character which have
been before the General Assembly at varl-
Gus times.
The order of the day was here called for.
REGISTRATION BILL.
The special order of the day, the regis
tration bill, was taken up and the first sec
ton adopted.
The second section was read.
Mr.. O'Hara-I move to strike out, in line
twenty-four, the words may have served,
ana insert the WOTIS may HdN ptth dp-
pointed" | want to. prevent the super
visors from resigning within two or three
weeks of the day OF election, and becoming
candidates for office.
Mr.. McMillen-I would suggest to the
Senator (Mr. OIIara) that We amend the
section by providing that the supervisors
shall not be eligible to candidacy for any
Office to be filled at the election at which
they may serve. -
Mr.. Blackman thought the section should
be amended so as to provide that clerks OF
supervisors should not be eligible to caudl-
dacy.
Mr.. McMillen said-The amendment sug.
eested by Mr. Blackman should be inserted
as an additional section to the bill.
MIR. holland said he would like to strike
out the clause, providing that super.
visors should not have held any State,
district or parish office within a year previ
Gus to the election at which they should
serve.
Mr.. Ingraham-I am in favor OF the
clause in the original bill, which allowed
justices of the peace and constabies &c
serve as supervisors. In many parishes il
would be difficult to find persons compe
tent to act as supervisors of registration
who are not justices Of the peace nor con
stables.
Mr.. Blackman said the constitution pre-
vided for that difficulty.
Mr.. McMillen said justices of the peace
and ~notaries public were excepted.
Mr.. Blackman-The greatest ground OF
complaint against the present registration
law is, that under it the Governor has ap
pointed supervisors to the different parishes
who were non-residents. This provision
has been inserted in the bill in order to pre-
vent members of the Legislature and other
from acting as registrars, and having them
selves again returned as elected. This i
one of the principal safeguards throw!
around the people in the bill. We wan
the supervisors simply to discharge thel
duty faithfully in the interest OF the peopl
of the State. We do not want them to b.
politicians, nor do we want them to be con
l nected with any Office whatever. | hop
t the clause will be retained in the bill.
i, Mr.. Gallup am in favor of any person
acting as supervisor who is not a candldat
for Office in the election at which he serves
| can not see any good reason why a per
t son who has held an Office within a yea
previous to the election should be ineligibl
t to the office of supervisor.
| Mr.. McMillen-I hope this clause will no
be stricken out entirely. l think we SHOULD
: guard in some way against the appolntmen
as supervisors of registration of person
!, holding office in the various parishes OF tn
l State. l believe this to be a wise provision
: from my experience in my own parish
where the tax collector, an appOintee OF tn
b Governor, is at the present time supervise
of registration. There is no objection o.
r my part, nor on the part of the people ger
t orally, so far as | know, to the gentlema
himself, but there is a public feeling agains
the concentration into the hands OF one ma
of so many important public offices. In m
own parish there can be found plenty G
men who are perfectly competent to dix