New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-03


the one Thousand bonds authorized to be is-
sued under act No. 30, approved December
-, 1865, known as the first issue ct leyee
bonds.
There does not appear to be any question
raised as to the validity or constitutionality
Of act No 80 of 1865, under the provisions
of which these bonds were authorized to be
issued. Nor is there any dispute as to the
time inter nor came into possession OF the
bonds CID led by him, or to the source
from which he derived them. But it is con-
tended on the part Of the State that the act
No. 81 of 1865 was repealed by the act No.
Il6 OF March 26 of 1867, previous to the eale
OF the bonds Issued hereunder.
And that OF those not sold but pledged
by the State to various parties. were taken
up through the means provided by that and
other acts; that they were returned to the
treasury, and, in effect of law, Cancelled.
That any attempted subsequent reissue OF
these bonds by the State Treasurer, was
unauthorized by law, and hence conveyed
no title to third parties who might be pos.
SCISSORS OF them.
There can be no question that the repeal
ing act put an end to any further effect OF
the original act OF twenty second of Decem.
Der. 1865, and any subsequent disposal of
the bonds by the State officials finds no war
rant under that act.
This point being settled, there remains
then tor solution the questions raised by
the intervenor:
/. Whether subsequent legislation has
not authorized the title claimed by the in
tervenOr.
o The intervenor having purchased the
bonds n good faith for valid considera-
ton; is not to be affected by the illega! sale
by the State officers.
The subsequent legislation unde: which
the intervenor claims valid title to the
bonds is the third section of act No. 81, ap
proved March l. 1867, page oil; session acts,
which enacts that for the purpose of rais
ing $l50,000 to pay the laboreYs on the
levees" the Auditor and Treasurer are hereby
authorized. and it is 1uade their duty to
borrow for sixty or ninety days, az they
may deem best, the said sum of $3.50, 900
now approported, and they are hereby au-
thorizod to pledge as collateral security
for said loan SO much as may be necessary,
seven hundred thousand dollars OF the
honda OF the State issued in accOr-
dance with en- act to authorize
the Governor 20 issue the bonds OF the
State for the amount of Sl,000,O00. APP
proved December -, 1868.
There can be no question that this section.
if properly passed, conferred the right upon
the Auditor and Treasurer to pledge pOr-
ton OF the bonds then in the treasury, and
if the bonds now in the possession of the
intervenOr were a portion Of these 700
bonds. and were thus pledged, the rights
of the intervencr were secured.
The affidavit of the inuervenor states. and
it appears to be conceded by the attorneys
of the State, that iutervenOr's bonds consti-
tute portion of 332 bonds pledged as col
lateral security by the Auditor and Treas
urer, on the second of March, 1867, to Pike.
Lapeyre & Brother, under the provisions of
the said third section Of act No. % OF March
/, 1867.
The rights OF the intervenors are, there.
fore, to be determined by the solution of
the question as to the validity OF said third
section.
1t is contended on behalf of the State and
the funding board, that the provisions of
said third section are unconstitutional be
cause the object of this section is not indi-
Gated or expressed in the title.
The title to this act No. 80 - ian act
to authorize the return of $50, 900 from the
general fund to the levee and drainage
fund, and to appropriate the same for levee
purposes" The first section of this act pro-
vides "that the State Treasurer be and he is
hereby authorized to return from the gen
the sum of $4,000. borrowed from that
fund by act No. as of 1863" This section is
clearly an enactment fully corresponding
to, and consonant with the first portion of
the title ito authorize the return of $4,000
from the general fund to the levee fund.-
and it seems to exhaust that portion of the
title
The second section provides that the
sum of $3.50, 600 be and the same is hereby
appropriated for the purpose OF paying
sums now due to the laborers upon the
levees, and to pay the said sums on the
warrant of the Governor in favor of the |
Board of Levee Commissioners from the |
money to the credit of the levee and drain |
age fund returned in this act. This sec.
ton also clearly corresponds with and is |
to the latter portion of the title, |
''and to appropriate the same for levee pur. |
pOses.'
These two sections, one and two, exhaust |
the objects expressed in the title. How is |
it with the third section'
1t enacts that, should there be no funds |
IN the State treasury available for the |
purposes of this act, then the Auditor |
and Treasurer are hereby authorized and |
It is made their duty to borrow, tor sixty or
ninety days, as they may deem best, the |
said sum OF $l50, 600 now appropriated, and
hey are hereby authorized to pledge, as
rs may be necessary of the 100000 of the
jonds of the State issued in accordance with
IN act entitled an act to authorize the Gov
,rnor to issue the bonds of the State for
he amount of 81 100000 and to provide
or the payment Of the same, to defray the
expenses Of building levees, in accordance
With the contracts made by him and the
evee commissioners appointed for this pur-
rose, approved December %. 1865, which
'cnds are now in the treasury of the State.
Giving the most liberal construction to
hat provision of the constitution which
equires that the object or objects
f every statute must be expressed
n the title, and applying the rule
f construction, enunciated in the case
f State Va. Hacket, 5 A. 81, quoted by
ntervenor in his brief: The title of law
hould not be inter preted in a strict legal
ense, and that it was sufficient that the
beet of law be stated in it's title" yet it
GEMS that the subject matter, the object of
his third section finds no Indication or ex-
ressiOn whatever in the title.
The language: ITO authorize the return
f $780, 900 from the general fund to the
svee and drainage fund.-" certainly does not
nabrsce the right and duty of the Auditor
nd Treasurer to borrow for sixty or ninety
avs % they may deem best the said sum
$3.50. or to pledge as . collateral &C.
arity for said loan SO much as may be nee
.sary of the 500, 600 of the bonds of the
tate"
The remaining portion Of the title,