The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-03-18

. State to said Levee Company, as ascerfsine,
as aforesaid. OF all these provisions of th,
public law the court takes judicial notice.
, The Louisiana Lavee Company has fled (
demurrer to the bill, based Oh two grounds
/. That the bill did not show eufficieu
matter OF equity to authorize decree tor til,
relief prayed for; and
2. That this court had no jurisdiction owe
the acts and dolngs of the Board of Lquida
non, or 70 prevent or hinder the General AS
sembiy Of the State to acknowledge and Al
SJust debt due the def ndant, aud tha. tn,
SAID parties are exempt from the jurisdiction
and authority Of The court in the premises
The demurrer and the motion Tor the in
Junction are dependent the one upon thu
other. ana were so considered and argued 10y
counsel 4. J. SEMMEs. for Complainant.
J. a. CAMPBELL, for Defendants
Woods, Circuit Judge: 1t is apparent 20 The
most careless reader. that by the passage of the
socalled = Funding Ac. the STATE OF I.oui.i
ana undertook to make . contract with the
holders OF all valid outstanding bonds of the
State and all valid warrants drawn previous &c
the passage Of the act. What that contrac;
was IS not difficult to determine.
On the one hand the holders OF The out.
standing bonds and warrants drawn b fore
the passage Of the act, were to surrender thei,
evidences OF debt and receive in full sat!sf4c-
ton therefor sixty cents on the dollar, to be
paid III the consolidated bonds Of the State
authorized by this act.
On her part the State agreed to issue cop
sohdated bonds to the amount OF fifteen mil
lions Of dollars " or 50 much thereof as might
be necessary, to take up the bonds ana war
| rants at the rate ust mentioned, and ID pay
| the consolidated bonds over to the holders OF
the outstanding bonds and warrants, Oh the
| surrender of their evidences of debt to the
| Board of Liquidation. AS an inducement to
the holders Of the bonds and warrants to take
sixty per cent Of their claims not in cash,
but IN other evidences of debt, the State
| agreed that the consolidated bonds, which
were to he paid to these creditors of the State,
should be held and used BY the Board
of Liquidation, 'only Tor the purpose
of exchange as aforesaid, that said
bonds should be used for no other pur-
pose or purposes than as authorized BY the
funding act, and that tax of five and half
mills on the dollar should be levied annually
on all the taxable property Of the State. to
pay the principal and interest on the consoli-
dated bonds, and the revenue derived there
from should be set apart for that purpose and
no other These are the express provisions
of the act, and the act itself in terms declares
that each provision shall be a contract be-
tween the State and each and every holder of
consolidated bonds.
Now what is it that the State, after entering
into this solemn contract, proposes by the act
OF February 20, 1915, to do? To take por-
ton of the consolidated bonds which were to
be issued only to an amount sufficient to pay
off the outstanding bonds and accounts at
sixty cents on the dollar which were author
lied only for the purpose Of being exchanged
tor bonds and warrants at that rate which
the State promised should be used for no
other purpose or purposes. and any other use
Of which She declared shall be felony; these
bonds she proposes t. give to general credi-
tor dollar for dollar.
This, it seems to me, IS most palpable
violation Of a solemn public contract.
The suggestion that the Legislature has re-
served the right to use such OF the CONSOLE
dated bond; as may not be necessary to take
up TIE old bonds or warrants for the purpose
of satisfy ing other creditors. is niscouc y
ton OF the Funding act In the frs. place
the contract is (Sectlon II that the State will
only Issue 50 r4any c0lso: liated bond; as may
be necessary to take 10 tle ot,'s anilng
bonds and warrants ,Sec.ion b that thew
shall be exchanged for All yalld outstanding
bonds and valid warrants drawn previous 20
the passage of the act at the rate Of sixty
cents in consolidated bonds for one dollar IN
outstanding bonds and warrants, and section
. that the consolidated bonds Shall be used
for no other purpose or purposes than as
authorized by this act. Section T. to levy a |
tax OF five and a half mills to pay the consol-
dated bonds, principal and interest, and
to devote the proceeds of the |
tax to that purpose
Placing these provisions Of the Funding bill |
side by side, 1t is impossible to see where the |
State has assumed either an express or i'm
piled right to use the consolidated bonds to |
~ Of no
appears to be at war not only with the spirit |
md purpose of tho Funding act, but with
is express declarations, and the attempt SO to
lse the bonds is q fragrant breach of con-
ract to which the honor and good faith of
he State were pledged in the most explicit
erms. An act OF the General Assembly
which authorizes and directs such O violation
If the contract of the State clearly impars
he obligation Of the contract and is therefore
unconstitutional, null and void.
(2) Has a holder of the consolidated bonds
ny remedy against this Threatened breach of
lis contract and if he has what is it.
When State becomes a party to a con
ract, the same rules of law are APP licable to
Ter to private parties When she or her
representatives. are properly brought into the
orm of tlgation, neither she nor they can
sSert any right or immunity as incident to
er political sovereignty"
Davis vs.. Gray, Il Wall. OBJ.
Curran VS. Arkansas. - How. 30S
1t is objected to this bill that in effect
be State Of Louisiana is q party, and that the
lth amendment t. the Constitution of the
nited States torbids such suit.
This objection is ans Hered by reference
, the case OF Osborn vs. The Bank Of the
nited States. 8 Wheaton, 7}5, and DAY vs..
ray, 16 Wall, 220. In the latter case the
curt says that the cause of Osborn VS.. The
ank, decided, CD Ii It a Circuit Court of the
nited States my enjoin State officer from
kecuting State law in conflict with the Con-
tuition OF the United Safes when such exec
ltion will violate the rights Of compliments. :
, that when the State cannot be made
party, the court may decree against
le officers Of the State, in all respects as if ,
le State were a party to the record, and (3) !
deciding who are parties to the suit. she !,
'urt will not look beyond the record.
This authority seems to answer the objec =,
On made to the jurisdiction Of the court. }
The case iS This. Tina Stata nt T,0u |