New Orleans Republican., 1873-06-18
NORTH LOUISIANA RAILROAD BOND
CASE.
Important Decision Of the Supreme Court.

io,tv six thousand dc llrs The prineps' Of the sAl
bones, with legal ~: rest t.om jud:ca. deraad.
said act uI OH the said rai'rood end all its nztuies
yo}nc stock ard a0pu, tenances to secure 1he
paymeu. OF said bonus aud interest ard j,s' y, 10
recover the p,,s ,sicn OF three hundr, 1 inds
alleged to have been illegally IsSut me 10
compauv 'tter thew We're IA d"fiult - ialhnE 20
delssit he mo,"y p'' ssary % IT, ne .tseIeS' o
as il fell due. "a Iequ;' ed by the id :: 20 1913
The p w. ,''Ata,sa a seh. J.: -, =, al e.:
cisl deu9' 'h.. :nv ,1ds were issued "f' ;ne
compan- wei. '2..ef-. t. ard q, 'he . Nc.
81 OF I8i., pub She! septenl ~, 1S.2 d the az
ceptance Of ,tet :ms Il eI. ,. by ne conn7ry as
re lease from all 'iab =. to tie STATE, "a 81
petuel trr - any 81 Du .he Il Il !, IN Is I'd ID ne
tonds 4. y 1 rrder sc. No. lo8 o; 1868
Flom ju6, mert in w of he '-ia' for ol3t",
amount . 'Ileless couIN p1:,d ";tn e'GHt isr
cent in. l. ST thereon IA ' dates and an
upon TIE railroad, ETC., nd noo 3r'.' tie N
for the re.nlA OF the $50 onds, the compauy Aa'e
appeal. i.
the North Lorisaea and Texas ',road Company,
authorized the issuance to I'd company cf
5000 oi state oon.ss for every II 9 of track when
completed. he :i.,p Feri.b'e by the iDdorsemer.
OF the preside, OF re company. nd VIII tEe ~
terest at eigut er''r r-yable seTi.annua y 70
be secured Dy q second mortgage IN vor or tie
State upon TIE said rai'roal. nA.dres aud arpuT'
;ena nces, the compaI having the iisht 70 exc
cute f,rst mortsaie to one mot. OF III Pa =.
$25 000Ie mite; I'd it we m9 le I1cumbent on .he
company ION Or before the Il iu'.iy Of any OF the
interest cOuL any the sfid bonds deFos1I
the amount the. { of IN the ste Treasury. iOr the
payment thereof. and ir .he event OF the fal uIe
of eaid railroad COMPANY to make such deposit for
the payment of the interest coupons or anv bones
SO issued to them that 10 further issue o. t,onus
shall be Da le to said rai'ro. cemnany. and the
State shall have tine Light to foreclOse the mott
gage herein gwen to cacure the rayment OF ihe
bonds and interest issued to said TO rd, ccordipg
TO the provisions Of this act. See sections eleven
and twelve.
The claim 20 enforce tie payment OF the bonds
having been alb. ndoned by the TAI : the sole O."
ton involved ,Es ap al is the light to sotlest
from the the Which J.iGentEs
wa. rendered below. The ,d defer :. rests 'ie.y
nPon u,"zs 1ne act ,Ds NO 81 6' Lossna snd
Railroal Company to substitute, stock OF
said company, instead OF second d. mo'tgaSe no,
pany from other liabilities to the state 1t pro.
vdes that N 'eu OF the second mo- rage re- uired
to secure the Stae for the ultimate pay ment of
the bonds issued in aCcUrdance Herewith, the
company may give iss stock to the State 10 an
bonds issued or be issued under the charter, 10
wiz. il 220 shar, s. and on the issue and delivery of
shall be refevC d ,om al liability on the aforesaid
bonds of the Ste; .ud on the id delivery beng
made, tine remainder the whole number OF bonds
authorize by tue chal ter shall Oe immediately s-
sued and tba. within sixty days after the pas
| sage of tie act the presiden, and di'
rectors Of the company shall, at meeting toI n
purpose adon. the provisions ther Of. and within
ninety days thereafter copy OF the resolution o.
adoption Shall be delivelsd to the Governor, who
shail fle Il the Office of Secretary of state. and
rs ne .rtifcate OF said stock is rendered,
| tie Coverno. cha" cause the remainder Of the
said bonds to delivered, which. with the bonds
already issued st"'l be payment in iull for said
stock; and the Governor snail appoint annually,
on behalf of tie State. one OF the nine directors
| TO present the State.
1t urged oo behalf of the State that the condi-
tons terms o. tbs &C. were not accepted within
the rescribed we; that it does not release the
| company from the LIABILITY to Ielund what the
| state had paid on account OF tie company before
The sc was passed and that is
Nos IO3 OF 1868 aud l0J OF 1871 lar as they stpu-
| late mort gage " favor of tine State or hold the
com pany liable the bonds issued TO them, with
on: wing made ade- -uate provision in the said re-
pealiHg act for the fsyment OF the principai ana
| interest OF the bonds required by article III
Of he cOnst;t lion.
First as to the acce ,tance nf the terms and con-
| oil lions of the 1T. J.. appears to have teen az
proved on the tentu of Apt 1872, and 1t was %
take +Hect om aud aler Its passage: but 1t was
OF Published a. lie wen.y- first of Sepfem Der
.'llowiug. TFis is one of the many instances Ut
pIantiti . thCoIy be correctly suggestive Of the
evils -nlting from he plac ice which has grown
up thir the last forr yells, OF making laws
duI ug .weve months of the year, inst lad OF sixty
davs fixed bv of tie .cles of the const!.
.uljOn; but, in orr OpiD on, the acceptance was
timely M le whether con side" the law i'll force
from App il 10 september u, for within the sixty
| davs Of each date the president and directors
adopted resolutions Of acceptance, and those OF
tn. latter date were transmitted to the Governor
There is and N be no question in this case as to
the issuance of the remain der OF the bonds within
! the nne.y days after the said acceptance. 1t was
clearly the purpose OF tn LegslatIle to give the
! company time within which they would naye
| oppol tunity to cept. and it caprov .e Sc oTsy
contended that the nes'cen' 20 The ohcel IN pro
mu'ratjng he law should ID; se it iUpossiblr .or
such me to anspire, and thus detilethe 90 npa.
~ yu, aud o.,portuuIt t. ccepi. l. would
! enaole hem to de.eat the leg. 'lative Will Con
! sid-rtng the acceptance as having been made
within the .bt tme, as we do, there can be
little GoUbt as to the effect Of the act, II nor IN
constit ut unal, in releasing tie company from all
LIABILITY to the State the bonds, Which neCes-
| saIiy includes liability for the interest Oh the
! bonds whether then due or not. One OF the OBJ
ipc release
Liability to the State. and by express terms they
| were, npon a certain contingency, relieved iiom
issued. The Ii h''ttv for the interest coupons re-
| sul1ed solely ION and was embraced in the la
| bliitv for the bonds OF which they were part.
when issued.
| The state has. by making the act No 108 of 1863
be basis o! its snit, recognized and atirmtd ITS con.
stitutouality in regard TO the adequate W -ys and
interest and the principal OF the bonds. That pro-
vision the obligation of the railroad company
to deposit in the State treasury, at the prescribed
dates the money to pay the interest and the bonds
which obi igatiOn was secured by "a second mort
gage on the railroad. its fixtures and appurte.
nances The State now says that the act No. 81 of
1872 relied on by the defendants has repea ed that
provision of said act No. lOS buG does not contain
some adequate provision for the sane purpose, and
! is therefore void. because in conflict with the
| plohibition in article Ill Of the constitution.
| sembIy shall contract a debt exceeding III amount
the sum of one hund. ed thousand dollars. unless
of war to repel Invasion or suppress insur-
yectiOu il SHALL the law creating the debt, pro-
vide adequate ways ard means for the payment
of the current interest and of the principal when
II shall became due; and the said law shall be
irTep.alable until principal and interest be fully
! paid. unless the repeaing law contain some
adequate provision for the payment OF the P'inc'-
! pal AID interest of the debt.'
Conceding that the act No. 81 Of 1872
peals IN this respect the provisions Of act No. JOB
of 1863 and that the question OF the adequacy OF
The prov sion to be made for :he payment OF the
debt and interest is judicial question: there IS
nothing in the record to enable us to detSrmine ,
fhnr ylnf la q a
of !6,2 is adequate provision for tie paw
ment of the principal and interest OF the debt
may be reasonable doubt as TO whether the act Of
the latter actually repeals that OF the earlier date
III the contemplation of the above article OF The
constitution. The law creating the iepc IS GER
taiuly not repealed The debt of the state. 80
created, still exists and the State is pre"iaded IN
this proceeding at least, from contestlnS its valid.
tv or that OF the first provided tor It's eay
ment. 1t is only the form and nature OF the secu
rltv required or tie railroad company that have
been changed. BY ouv law a second mortgage was
required OF the .ompary Y. security for the pay
ment of the debt created in their behalf By the
The company's transferring to the state one one
sixth OF its entire stock. Upon the policy
OF these enaetmsnts and .l;s tIansae lons; we
can very properly conclude that there IS such
reasonable doubt as to their unconstitutionality
in the re spects referred to. under the we'll set
tied jur sprudence of this state and country to be
justified in not annulling them. When there ls
doubt law viii not not be held ,a aneoRsf5atGns agi
4i6: An, S. 756: An, 3ll An 562 II An, i122
There is anot her view in which this case may be
considered without direct reference TO the const
rutioual question raised by the counsel OF the
State and which is quite as favor able TO the de-
fense This is controversy between the state.
which issued the bonds, and the railroad company
for whose benefit they were issued. and the hold.
ets of the bonds and their rights are not before u.s.
Nor is there any claim before US to enforce the pay
ment Of any of said bonds. The State has paid
some Of the interest on them, which it alleges the
seeking to collect as a debt due by the company.
As a defense to the suit the company plead set
Element under act No. 81, which has authorized
;i.- in navment No proyison of the cOnstitu-