The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-08-01
ing. or to the ipsuficiency of the allegations in

ing. or to the ipsuficlency OF the al0SatlOne IN
the petition The issue is made up by The answer
Of the Board as well as by the State, which de-
MES the validity and the legality OF the bonds.
Whe her the Act No. IL, acts Of 1875, conflicts
with the amendment to the Constitution, ADOPTED
10 1874, which have are ady quoted and the ACT
No. 5, OF the acts OF "a, which this amendment was
intended 10 make irrepealable and unalterable,
by subsequent Legislature The act OF 1919
authorized the funding OF the valid debt OF Lhe
State, and authorized the Board Of Liquidation
to issue bonds therefor The validity of the obi,
gatons presented to the board was to be Judged
Cf, in the first instance, by the board, with the
right Of appeal to the curtis by any claimant
whose bonds the board refused to fund. The
amendment to the constitution provided that all
bonds issued by the board should be q valid obi
gason Of the State in favor Of the holder thereof
and prohibits any court from enjoining the pay
ment of such bonds or the interest thereon. All
holders of bonds, there fore, issued by the board
under this act, are protected IN the II rights The
Legislature can pa- 10 law affecting their valdi-
ty, for this would be lmpairng . contract already
cOnsummsted. But We do lot understand that
this prohibition extends beyond the bonds issued
in conformity with the statute under considers
State under this act. His bonds are not bonds is
sued under this statute. He simply claims the
benefit Of its provisions. He aeks that bonds be
given him in exchange for those which he now
holds. By the first acc the board was given the
power to pass primarily upon the Validity OF his
funded If the board considered them in
valid. If the decision had been against
him he would have appealed to the courts II he
ielt himself wr0nged. II the courts had come
to the conclusion that his debt was valid one,
the board would have been compel ed to issue
the bones as provided for by the act. In the last
resort, therefore, the decision or his rights de-
pended upon the courts. 1t was only those OBJ
legations which it was authorized to issue bonds
tor. Now, the Legislature has seen proper to
take away the absolute determination OF the
validity OF the claims which we're likely to be pre-
scented under this act from the board OF iquida-
ton, and give to any taxpayer the right to have
the question Of their Validity passed upon
by tue courts. 1t has also seen proper
70 designate certain outstanding bonds and
other evidences Of debt "a suspicious and to pro-
hipir the board from funding them uatl their
validity shall have been passed upon BY the
courE There IL nothing tnat we can see which
is Unconstitutional in an act Of the Legislature
which gives to the citizens of the state the right
to see that no claim set up against it shall be
paid until the validity thereof ia ascertained.
There is no violation OF any contract with the
relator by the act in question, becau,e at the
time the act was passed no contract existed, up-
der the act OF 1874 between him and the state.
The bonds he holds nov are in the same condi-
ton that they were prior to the passage OF either
Of the acts now under consideration.
We, therefore, decide that Act No. II, OF the
acts pa sed at the extra session of the Legisla-
ture of 1875. and approved on the 18th of May,
1875, does not conflict with the amendment
to the Constitution adopted in 1874, and u.s. there
fore, constitutional.
The next question is whether the bonds pre-
scented by the REALTORS are valid obligations
against the State. The only bonds before us are
certain bonds issued und er Act Nc. lis, approved
March rs, 1867, for expenses OF building levees
also, same bonds alleged to have been issued
under act of tie 18th OF February, 1866, for the
purpose of paying certain debts" And we de-
sire to be distinctly understood that We are ex-
pressing no opinion on the validity Of any bonds
except those before US and in the hands oil
the relatOr. FL 80 far the levee bonds
are concerned, the evidence satisfies US that
those in the possession Of the relator are valid
obligations against the State, and that they
as alleged under act Of Is of February, 1866,
we have only to say that there is no act of the
| Leg islature of that date which authorizes the
issue of any bonds. There ls an act of the 18th
| Of February, 1866, which authorizes an issue.
Probably these are the bonds now sought TO be
funded, but the allegations in the petition are
that they were issued under certain act and
the bonds bear date of the act under which they
are alleged to have been issued. There is a
discrepancy here in the proof which we cannot
supply.
Ills, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed
that in so far as relates to the bonds alleged to
hs We been issued under the statute approved
Feb Is, 1866, that the judgment of the District
Court be avoided, snnulled aud reversed, and
the application dismissed as in case OF non suit.
And it is further ordered, arjudged and decreed
that as regards the bonds in the possession oil
the relator issue1 under Act No. u.s. approved
March 26, 1867, for expenses Of building levees,
and under Act No 80, approved Feb. Is, 1870, for
work done or to be done on the levees, and de-
scribed in his petition, and in his possession, that
the Judgment of the District Court be affirmed
| Chief Justice Ludeliog dissenting.