New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-02-07

| "A6oAoAI VI ILLS buDJect, WHICH Is uua0-
swered and unanswerable.
| Our present purpose is to prove from
the statement of the Picayune itself that
it has conceded the proposition which We
enounced and argued. 1t says:
The funding board il
vested in the first instance with the power
OF deciding upon the validity Of bonds Of
fered for funding
Granted.
There is an appeal from their decision tc
the courts. and the REPUBLICAN admits that
decision of those courts makes such bonds
"a legal tender in despite of the board"
Granted. The non sequitou of the
Picayune consists in assuming that be-
cause we regard the judgment on appeal
binding on the board, We thereby admit
the original judgment equally obligatory.
| The Picaylne states that some of these
fraudulent and tainted" bonds have been
| adjudged valid by the courts, and there
fore ''placed beyond the possibility of re-
pudiation. 1t goes on to argue the i'm
probability that the opinion of the courts
would vary on a rehearing:
The same courts, composed of the same
judges who rendered these decisions. still
exist; and if the funding board should
deem it essential to have a rehabilitation
on the validity of their bonds. we submit
to all intelligent persons to determine the
weight Of probability that they will change
Their solemn ENTHUSIASTICALLY printed and
given to the wor!d-in bound volumes Of
the reports
We prefer not 70 talk about the "prob.
ability" of a reversal. even if the opinion
be already printed "in bound volumes"
But the reader will see here the admis.
sions that If the funding board should
deem it essential to have rehabilitation
on the validity of their bonds" they can do
so. The grammar of the Picas,n. is
rather cloudy as to whether these bonds
so to be readjudicated are those OF ,ae
court, or Of the State. But enough is
plain to establish its admission that the
board Of liquidation may decide upon the
validity Of any bond offered to them for
even if there have been original
judgments in favor Of their validity.
So the Picaytne. setting out with the
that these fraudulent and
tainted bonds are. when protected by
Judgment of the courts. beyond the posi-
bllity OF reputation. winds up with the
conclusion that the funding board may
compel rehearing of adjudication of !
these very bonds if it chooses to do so.
A more Chinese charge and skedaidle |
could not have been presented.
Having conceded this power of review
md compulsory rehabilitation 70 the |
unding board our professor Of logic goes
III to say it is very absurd to suppose
hat the court on zehearing would dis
'llow bonds once adjudged valid because
If evidence of false statements or corrupt
Of the courts. We sub
nit that upon a rehearing new
natter might be introduced, and in such
ase there might be reversal of opinion.
This is too obvious to require argument.
We then claim the judicial admission of
be Picay7o,e, that the State is not abso.
utely bound to pay fraudulent and
ainted bonds" 1t has right to review
nd disallow them. and to compel a new
rial Of their validity before the courts,
nd at this new trial the Attorney General
I'LL be present. and see the taxpayers are
rotected.