New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-11-30

tense entirely on the denial of the power of
the judiciary to command the Treasurer to
set this apart, or in other words, to direct
him to pay those warrants which have been
drawn by the Auditor OF Public Accounts,
out Of this or any other fund, than that
which the law has specially designated
they shall DE paid from. As to the power
of the judiciary over the subject, it is scarcely
necessary to make any comments at all.
The judiciary is an independent coordinate
branch of the government, and 1T must De
SO in every government. Without Judi
ciary provided for no government could
exist, and the trainers OF the constitution
have followed the line of history in provid-
ing government for louisiana; and have
provided that there shall be a judiciary; and
the judicial power must always be invoked
when the interest of the citizen demands 1t.
1t must always give relief in all questions
where controversies arise between citizens
or between the State and a citizen; it must
grant sudh relief as exists in the law ana
the facts warrant.
This is clearly a judicial question. Here
parties seek to compel the payment OF
monies due. There is no question that the
monies is due by the State, and is to be paid
out of the State treasury. The judiciary
then, having the power to examine the
case, must take into consideration all the
questions that pertain to it. You can not
deny the jurisdiction, because that Is
vested-fxed; and to deny the juris-
diction would be to deny the right OF
every citizen to urge his claim before
court. Then, taking jurisdiction OF the
case, this comes strictly within the line OF
equity. The court will enforce that juris-
dlctiOn by every means necessary to make
it ettectual. There is no limit, no pow er, ex-
cept the sovereign act, prohibiting any par
ticular case; which has not been done in
this. There is no way of controlling the ex-
ercise Of equitable jurisdiction. La the case
of Ray vs. the Auditor and Treasurer, this
court laid down principle, and granted an
equitable remedy OF relief by Injunction.
1t held that the State owed a primary obliga.
ton to its officers to pay them; that the pay
ment was part of the Office itself. 1t had
no reference to who nigh; occupy any par
ticular office, but the officers payment wac
provided for in the constitution; and 1t was
mandatory on the legislative department Of
the government to provide the means-a
duty which they could not escape without
becoming recreant in the discharge OF their
obligations.
If the Legislature should fail--as init
mated by the Attorney Generate provide
the means for the payment of the public
ton, it would be at once declared an insur
gent body and dispersed. An indignant
public would not hesitate long about dis
posing of any persons who should take
such step as that, because it would be so
fagrantly in violation of the organic
law. 1t would not be tolerated for
a moment. Suppose the public might
not take that course and tie Legislature
should conclude that for session or two,
or for any number of sessions. it should
not provide for the payment, by the rals-
ing Of a revenue, of the current expenses
of the government scarcely one session
would eiapse before the government would
come to an end. If that was to become the
settled policy of the Legislature, the mem-
bers who would embark in such scheme
would never find their places in the Legis
lature second time. So that, taking any
view of it, it is not possible or supposable
case that they would act in such manner.
The Legislature, however, has done moth
ing of the kind and contemplates nothing
of the kind. 1t has made provision by
making the necessary appropriations at the
regular session for the payment OF the Off
GERS and the current expenses of the gov
l will here remark it is not
enough that the Legislature makes the
appropriations; there is another duty
equally binding and mandatory upon it, and
from which it can not escape without pro-
ducing the very consequences sought to be
in this proceeding. 1t must
provide a revenue sufficient to pay them.
This is equally as binding on She Legisla !
ture as to make the appropriations. They
can escape neither obligation without being
eensurable for dereiietioR Of duty. and
there is remedy for it-and it is not the
only remedy that may be applied either |
that OF substituting another Legislature.
for that goes on any way as provided for by
the constitution. Here is another inter
iict, another inhibition on its action.
Until it provides for this mandatory pro
vision OF the constitution a sufficient
revenue to detray the necessary expenses
If government, part of which is it's own
1t the regular session, it can not create any
other obligation nor provide any other fund,
aud if it should provide funds for the salts.
action of other demands which it should |
5reate, and there is found deficiency. to |
he extent Of that deficiency the court will |
intervene on application to prevent its pay |
nent. This of itself, is sufficient to author
re the judiciary to prohibit the payment.
That is exactly what this court has done |
n the case referred to. By decree of this |
'ourt, it prevented the payment of any
'ther claim un ill those are satisfied. This |
doctrine is founded on the primary obliga-
ion which the State has imposed in the or
.anic law. 1t is binding on the Legislature
is well as on the judiciary and on
very public officer. We are all bound |
like by the provisions of the CON
titution. | am inclined to think |
hat the provisions of the constitution
s stated by the Attorney General is special
Y applicable i'll the enforcement OF this
lew. Article Ill which provides that
be Legislature shall create no debt without
ROY II ipC tnr nfs I
crest and the ultimate extinction of the
rincipal of the debt in the act which
reates it. That is directed to and is pro-
ibitory on the Legislature and restrictive
f its power. The Legislature is cols-
landed to provide for these other expenses
OF by making appropriations, for
nat is not compliance, that is sim
ly N discharge of ministerial duty
bout which it is unnecessary to say
neither they are commanded to do it an
ually or not, because the constitution has
lready fixed the amount, and the simple
.ct that at the regular session they pass
appropriation bills is of very little impor.
ince; but il is to raise the revenue that
lie Legislature is charged with. and that is
duty from which it can not escape. After
he Legislature raised a sufficient revenue
" the purpose of discharging those
Dligations which were imposed on it
the date OF the adoption OF the
it then may possibly create
debt not above 500, 000 provided it
axes provisions for the payment of the
terest and also of the principal at
aturity.
But there is another question in consider.
g that subject that must be taken in con
Iteration. The taxing power has a limit.
Though the constitution, in terms. does
IT limit the power of taxation, get the
ghts Of property and OF persons form a
srrer against unlimited taxation. 1t can not
, urged that should they levy twenty-five
IT cent tax. they can do so simply because
e constitution does not limit their power !
assessment. What was contemplated bv
e constitution and the power conferred
7 that instrument on the Legislature is its
discretion over the amount OF
Epenses that were fixed in that instrument.