New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-05-04
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, MAY 3, 1873.
United states Circuit Court.

1t is claimed by the defendants that, con
ceding that tho power to contract debt
for levee purposes existed IN the police
jury, it could only be exercised in a par
ticnlar way. and that that way was
pointed out by the act No 25S of April 29,
1888, acts Of 1858. p. 23i, which has not been
followed. This act declares ''that the
police juries of the several parishes IN this
State snail not hereafter have power TO cen
tract any debt or pecunary liability with
out fully providing, IN the ordinance ere
ating the debt, the means OF paying The
principal and interest OF the debt SO con
tracted.'
This provision of tie statute has been in
force since 1853, and Is in force now, and is
a settled principle of the Jurisprudence OF
this State. Under this law, as construed
and enforced by the Supreme Court OF this
State, the duty Of the police jury was,
whenever it contracted debt or pecuniary
liability, 30 provide fully the means of pay
ing it, both principal and interest.
For instance, the police jury might under
take to erect courthouse, OF build a
bridge, or construct a hall. 1t was net
necessary that it should undertake To pay
for the whole work in one year, but 1t was
necessary, as soon as 1T contracted debt, or
incurred a pecuDiary liability, that it
should produce the means of payment, and
other source of revenue than taxation, that
it should levy tax fully sufficient for the
purposes, to continue until the debt or lia-
bility was eXtingnished. The parish can
not escape The DUTY of providing for the
payment of Indebtedness incurred by con-
tracing Indebtedness, without doing SO by
ordinances, would be a most transparent
evasion OF the policy of the statute.
L instruct you that when the parish un-
4 lyac nf this bind and
the work has been done, it may anticipate
its revenues by issuing vouchers for money
due, certificates of Indebtedness for services
rendered or for property furnished for the
use of the parish. These will be good in
the hands of any holders, subject to any
equities in favor OF the parish az defense;
provided always, that when the parish in
Cured the liability it laid a tax fully suti-
cient to pay the principal and interest on
the debt incurred. The policy of this law
of Louisiana is clear. 1t was to save the
parishes and municipal corporations of the
State from contracting debts for posterity
to pay; to save them from the waste
full extravaganza which results from the
power to contract debts provisions for the
payment Of which is postponed to future
day. 1t was to enforce economy in public
expenditures by making the taxpayers teel
at once the burden of any debt contracted
ny Vic OiliCtIs ol tDo pdIlsli, lo"A VI Clty {.
Ii was a wholesome policy, and has been
again and again enforced by the Supreme
Court of this State. Capmartin We. Nat
chitocbes. % An. 100; Breaux va. Iberville,
% An. 232, see also % An. 25l; Edwards VS..
Basin, "a An. i51; Stating VS.. West Feiici-
ana. 26 An. p. 50.
instruct you that though these warrants
are transferred by assignment when they
are payable to order or by delivery where
they are payable to bearer. they do not
possess that other quality of commercial
paper, namely that the holder who takes
them for value can recover on them not
withstanding there may be good defense.
The defendant says that the law was not
observed, which alone gave the police jury
power to contract debts and incur pecuniary
liabilities. 1t has been frequently deter
mined, says the Supreme Court in Sterling
vs. West Feiciana, Il AN. p. SO, that police
juries are political corporations, whose
powers are specially defined by the Legis-
lature, and that they can legally exercise
no other power than that delegated to them.
They are specially required by statute, when
within the scope of their legitimate powers,
they create a debt against the palish to
provide in the same ordinance the means Of
paying il.
Now, you will look into the evidence to
ascertain whether provision was made by
the ordinance which authorized the crea-
ton OF the debt for the building Of the
leyees, for the tull payment of that princi
pal and interest. The warrants 81 gned by
tho president Of the police jury, A. I.
Welch, refer on their face to the ordinance
Of July 2l, 1859, amended October d. 1859,
as the authority for their issue. You will,
look to this ordinance as amend
ed to ascertain whether it provided for the
payment of the principal and interest of
The debt authorized to be contracted by it.
have looked through this ordinance, and
have been unable to find any such provi-
sion. Look through the ordinance for the
to contract the debts represented
by the eng gineers' warrants, and see whether
there is to be found therein provision for
the payment of the principal and interest
II there is not instruct you that the po
lice jury had no power to contract the
iebts, and the warrants representing the
sane are no better than blank paper.
Under the act of 1888 the duty of the
aolice jury of the parish was plain and
sasily performed. When any unusual work
ts cost and levy tax to pay for it. Where
,hey expected to make no expenditures
Except for the ordinary administration OF
,he parish affairs, they were required to
evy tax for such general and ordinary
purposes. The policy of the law was to
'equire the parish officers, whenever they
a debt or incurred liability, to
ace the responsibility of ievying tax to
bay it in full. The means to pay the debt
was required to be provided by the very
ordinance which authorized the debt to be
1t was not to be left |
% the future action of other officers
o make provision for its payment.
They were not allowed, and it was SO
teld in Sterling VS.. West Feliciana, to con-
ract debts for the ordinary expenses with |
ut levying tax to pay them. Much less |
we're they allowed to undertake the great |
york of constructing or repairing levees for |
n entire parish, involving, as the evidence |
hows, an outlay of hundreds of thousands |
f dollars, without making provisionl by |
avying tax to pay principal and interest. |
whether this has been done in this case. If |
. has not then there Can be no recovery on |
hese warrants, or on the claims against the |
arish which they represent.
The Jury returned verdict for the plain |
if.
Supreme Court.
Present Chief Justice Ludeling. and |
ustices Taliaterro, Howell, Wyly and Nor |
an.
The following decisions were rendered:
EEHEARING GRANTED.
No. 1902 Thomy Lafon VS.. William e.
lylman CT al.
EEHEARING REFUSED.
No. 5f62. John I. Michel vs.. Zer:!la
Ieyer 1t al.
BY CHIEF JUSTICE LUDELING.
No. 5is4. State ex rel. A. V. Brown. ap-
pllant, va. T.. NJ. Cramer.-From Thir-
.enth judicial District. Exception that
rawford was BOT district attorney pro TEN.
he certainly being de facto such |
ficer. and case remanded.
No. 1923. State ex rel. j. c. Scale VS..
,asc n. Crawford, observation-disclosures
,versed in favor of plaintiffs right to the
fice OF district attorney pro tenn. Justice
WV coucurs, and considers act No. A of
a. changing the manner OF filling vacan-