The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-03-17
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
The Lcvee Company Case.

lhere was large attendance OF mem Der:
OF the lar in this court yesterday, OWNS
| in no little degree to the fact that there ha
| been no sessi II of this tribunal for some
| months. Since last June these halls of Fed
eral justice have been silent, and neither
midday nor midnight order has been sent
adrift to startle the world.
At IL o'clock Judge Woods took the bench
looking h he and hearty after his absence
and Marshal Holander in his old tones called
for silence in Court.
After the calling Of cases, the following
cause was taken up: H. S. McComb vs.. The
Funding Board, in which Messrs. Semmes &
Mott appeared for complainant, and Me>srs.
]no. A. Campbell, Fello rs x Mills and Gil
more 4 Sons for defendants.
The question involved in the case is this
ii $. McComb, owner ola number of State
Funding Board. restraining them from fund
ing under an act of the last Legislature GER
tain bonds ordered to be issued to the Leyee
Company, on the ground that the court had
no jurisdiction over the board
Hon. John A. Campbell filed a demurrer to
to the bill denying the right of complainant
to ask the writ. AMI instead of taking up the
rule Tor the injunction the demurrer was
tried.
Judge Campbell, after reviewing the bill
filed by II. S. McComb. and reading the i'm
portant allegations contained in it. re-
ferred to the modesty Of the request of COM
p.ainant, who owns only three bonds, and
seeks to question the whole Indebtedness OF
OF the State.
He argued at length that the ownership of
Il small number of obligations OF a State did
not give the creditor the right to question
every debt set up against it. When State,
said he, acknowledges debt it becomes
one, and it is not for those who are not the
regularly appointed officers to question it.
This tribunal had no right to question the
acts of the Funding Board of the State on :.
showing like that made in the bill.
The demurrer was on two points, that the
court had no jurisdiction and that complain
ants could not inquire into their acts. In his
he objected to citizen coming into
court and lnqulring into the constitutionality
of law. under circumstances like the pres
ent. The State is represented by its appoint
ed officers, not by individuals who, whether
they live in Delaware or here, are not entitled
to question Legislative acts.
Tne present case he said was brought by
one who alleges that he owns their bonds, but
does not SHOW hoy he viii be dana 3ei if the
act Of the Legislature be carried out He
further urged that the bill of compliant did
not aver any fact going to show how LcComt
would be damaged.
He then read the act which created the
Funding Board, and urged that lis 20 xers
we're not confined t. the boad, mentioned IN
Lis act, but their jurisdiction extended
,eyoud The mention in the &C. of certain
bonds did not restrain the Sac Ito.n issuing |
more.
The delegation of power was not solely for
he purpose of funding one class Of bonds, it |
vas for finding the Indebtedness Of the State, |
10 matter what that might be, so long as il
anne within the purvicw OF the sections of
he act.
He attempted to make the powers of the
oard rs broad as the Indebtedness and to
give them the right to audit and issue bonds |
Or debts other than those prescribed specifi
ally in the law He continued at some
ength, and was followed by counsel on the
opposite side.
After the arguments had closed, the Court
ook the whole matter under adyisement.