The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-08-04

ton of act No. IL, of extra session of 1875
was that the legality of each issue Of tn
bonds brought in question should be testet
in the courts before any bonds of tina
issue were funded by the board, and
that when the validity of any one
or number of bonds Of that issue hat
been passed upon by the Supreme Court o
be regarded by the Funding Board as conclu
sive to the whole issue.
Any other construction, it appears to me
would obviously interpose an almost insuper
able barrier 10 the way of funding the obliga
| tons Of the State, and would work an unwar
ranted hardship upon every bondholder.
call your attention to this point, and de
sire your opinion as matter of precautioI
and to avoid all possibility of doubt
Very respectfully,
VIM P. KELLOGG.
To this the Attorney General sent the fol
lowing
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE, ]
State OF louisiana,
New Orleans, Aug. 2, 1875.
To His Excellency, W. P. Kellogg, President o
the Funding Board:
Sir-Your communication of this date hal
been duly received, covering decision re-
Gently delivered by the Supreme Court a.
Monroe in the case of the Sta of Louisiana
on the relations of Oscar j. Forstall VS.. the
Board of Liquidation, case involving the
validity Of certain bonds issued by the State
of Louisiana, and held by parties in this
country and Europe. My opinion is more
directly requested upon the peculiar phrase.
ology of this portion of that decision
"And we desire to be distinctly understood
that We are expressing no opinion on the va
lidity of any bonds except those before US in
the hands Of relator. In so tar as 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 should be funded"
It will be observed that the bonds held by
relator we're issued under Act lis, approved
March 26. 1867, for expenses Of building
levees, and under which act four millions of
dollars of bonds we're issued, and also under
Act 80, approved February rs. 1870, under
which three millions were issued.
The validity Of both the acts have been ex-
pressly sustained by this decision, as well as
having been twice passed on to the same
effect by the same court. If the acts are,
therefore, valid and constitutional, and the
bonds held by the relator, issued under these
acts, are valid obligations against the State
and ought to be funded, then all the valid
bonds outstanding, not exceeding the limit
prescribed in said acts, are equally valid and
should be funded.
I cannot conceive that any other reasonable
construction could be placed upon the deci-
sion that you have submitted for my opinion.
1t could not be supposed for moment that
the Supreme Court intended that the bonds
issued under the provision of the acts which
they have sustained should be contested by
piecemeal, and that each and any holder of
these bonds, however small, should compel
their funding by resort to suit, to be de-
termined by the same court that had already
passed in effsct upon their validity.
cannot hesitate, therefore, in expressing
the opinion that your board are bound, under
their duty and in accordance with the de-
cision referred to, to fund all valid bonds
issued under the provisions of the acts Of the
Legislature above referred to.
With high respect your obedient servant,
A. P. FIELD, Attorney General.
The following supplemental comm unica-
ton was this morning sent in
BY the Attorney General:
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE,
State OF Louisiana,
New Orleans, Aug. 3. 1875. J
His Exceller cy W. P. Kellogg President of the
Board of Liquidation:
Sir-Since my reply to your communication
Of yesterday in rela ion to the effect of the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Forstall vs. the Board of Liquidation,
have examined the provisions of act No II
Of the extra session of 1875, called the Sup
Elemental Funding bill, and 1 find this pro-
vision in the first section of the act: That
Iii costs incurred in any suit under this act to
the extent of one suit carried to
final issue as to each separate issue of
bonds or warrants, the legality, validity,
Or consideration of which are questioned,
shall be paid by the State. 1t is very clt ar in
nv mind that upon careful reading of the
first section of the act No. II, that it was not
that more than one suit on each
series Of bonds prosecuted to final judgment
in the Supreme Court should be necessary
Every lawyer would regard the decision Of
The Supreme Court in the case Of Forstall as
settling the validity of bonds of that series,
and to that extent res judicatd.
You will, therefore. accept this as part OF
nv opinion submitted to you on yesterday.
With high respect, your obedient servant,
A. P. FIELD,
Attorney General