New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-06-01
NEW ORLEANS REP1BLCAN TUESDAY JUNE l. 1875


dses the principal % the bonds falls due
The bonds held by various creditors of thu
State prior to 1874 have . contrac,
with the State, between the Stat
and each bondholder, and the act o.
1874 authorized on the part of the
State the making OF q new contract be
tween each bondholder and the State
under the reduction of the debt at the rate
OF interest thereon, as stipulated in said act
If all the bOndhOlders had refused to agree
to the terms and conditions of act No. OF
1874, then the act would become nullity
and the original contract would have been
in force and still subsisted. The relat0r in
this case alleges that he is the owner of Ger
tain bonds issued by authority OF law prior
to the passage Of this act. He proposes to
and does accept the terms and conditions
of the act No. 3 Of 1874, but that
the funding board, authorized by
this act, have refused to comply with the
conditions prescribed by the State about
funding these bonds as demanded, alleging
as a reason therefor that the act No IL of
1875 prohibits them from acting until the
judgment of the court is had upon the
validity of their bonds.
This brings US to the examination of act
No. II Of 1875, which, among other things,
parties are made parties litigant to the
question, and discuss the validity of this
contract between the holders of bonds and
the State many years antecedent to the
passage of the act No. 3 of 1874. 1t pro-
vides that any taxpayer who may be as.
sessed for the payment of interest on the
public debt may obstruct the funding OF
these bonds by raising the question as to
their validity or correctness.
III 81 A.
precedent, because for the first time it Gre
ates parties with those having ne interest,
and can have none, IN the contract as be-
tween the State and bondholder. As we'll
might a taxpayer raise the question as to
what disposition is made OF the tax for
levee purposes, or for the current ex-
penses OF the government, as to raise the
question as to the disposition made of the
tax which he is required to contribute to
the payment of the public debt OF the State
This debt, being contract between the
party and the State, is as free from any
such inquiry as would be the Governor OF
the State and the judges of a court in a
case where the State was seeking to recover
a tax from any member of the common
wealth, to be applied to the general fnHd of
the State: that is, the fund tor the payment
OF the current expenses of the State.
The appalling feature in this act is found
IN section three, which absolutely prohibits
the funding commission from acting until
the court should determine whether certain
bonds or contracts which they designate as
questioned should be valid or not. The
Legislature mas no power or authority to
raise question as to the validity or cor
rectness OF contract after the contract is
made, and declaration to that effect is
therefore Idle and nugatory. The question
is purely judicial question. The Legisla.
ture is without the right or authority to en-
act the decree. Having done 30 in this
case, and for the purpose of enabling them
to do so, having provided parties who have
no interest in the cause, the whole act is
stricken with nullity.
1t is the duty of the officers of the State,
especially the funding board, more directly
interdicted by this statute, to disregard it,
and to conform to and comply with act No.
3 of 1874.
The REALTORS in this case propose to &C.
cept, in all its parts, act No. 3 of 1874,
and allege that that they are ready to &C.
cept all its conditions and obligations.
While this act, if rejected on the part of
the other contracting party and cred
irOrs of the State, would be nugatory,
because of there being but one party
to the contract; yet, when any one &C
cepts it, as far as he is concerned, it
upon him, and forever precludes him from
questioning it's validity or any of its pro-
visions thereafter. 1t then becomes a con-
tract which can not be varied even BY any
provision which made bv the
State therefor without his consent, would
be valueless and without any effect go far
as he is concerned. This contract could
not, therefore, be impaired or infringed
without his consent.
Act No 3 of 1874 has none Of the features
of an act of repudiatiOn it is free from any
charge or imputation of reputation. 1t is
simply on the part of the State and its
creditors who have accepted Its forms
new contract that supersedes the previous
contract between the creditors and the
State. The State is without power BY sub
sequent legislative enactments to embar-
rass the provisions of this contract; it can
only be disturbed by the consent of both
parties on the same principle this second con-
tract was made. We have only to look into
the constitution of the United States to learn
that no State can make any statute or pro-
vision impairing the obligation of a contract
Act No. 3 of 1874 has steered clear of any
such embarrassment. as to in anywise pro-
pose to enforce anything without the con-
,ent of the creditors of the State.
l conclude, therefore, that the act No. II
If 1875, extra session, is 30 absolutely void
n all it's parts that 1t is entitled to no con.
liberation by the funding board or others
affected thereby.
The mandamus is made peYemptory
against the funding board, directing the |
BOARD to fund them as specified namely:
Bonds under act No. lis of 1867, six per
'ent levee bonds; act No. 30 of 1870, g., OO0,- |
700 of eight per cent levee bonds; act No.
5 Of February, 1866, for the funding of GER
ain obligations.
Justin Marshall vs. Board Of Metropoli-
an POlice.-PetitiOner states that he was |
Employed by defendant at a salary of $1,000 |
rom April l, 1873, to December 81, 1873; |
hat he is transferee of the claims of Good |
ich and Curtis, patrOlmen; that they lost |
n their warrants an average of twenty-five |
er cent; that the board, by act No. Ga, were |
uthOrized to issue warrants to cover the |
iscount, but refused to do go; and prays
Or judgment for 500 IS.
Superior Criminal Court
TRUE BILLS.
State vs.. Helena Bender.-Periury: max
e false affidavit that Mary MalOy
rev brick at her.
State VS.. John Goekin.-Perjurv; making
false affidavit that at certain time Mary
alloy rang his door bell.
A1e"VO NS' v oCOU "A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
,fOre the fact to the embezzlement of
erdiuand Dudenheffer from the Germanla
ational Bank.
INFORMATIONs.
Carrying concealed weapons. i, e.. pistols |
'hn Thompson. John +. Leary, John
arrow, Daniel Sullivan.
Assault and battery-W. j. O'Connors,
Il. Patterson, p. Clarisse; beating RAMON
ontane, May 4, 1875, on Tchoupitoulas
rect.