The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-06-02
THE SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDING
BILL.
IT IS DECLARED A NULLITY.

Ol04s
IT rs DECLARED A NULLITY.
In the case of Forstall against the Board Of
Judge Hawkins, of the Superior
District Court has rendered very import
ant decision, by which the act No. II, of 1875,
special session, known as the Supplemental
Funding Act, is absolutely void in all its
its parts"
The suit of the plaintiff was for writ Of
mandamus to compel the board to fund GER
tain State bonds issued under acts No. Is Of
1866, No. lis of 1867, and No. 80 Of 1870. OF
the latter there are $4,000, 600 in eight per
cent levee bonds. The suit was brought un-
der act No. 8 of the regular session of 1876,
known as the funding act The board had
refused to fund the plaintiffs bonds because
prohibited from SO doing by the supplemental
funding act, which forbids their acting until
the validity of the bonds had been passed
upon by court, as that act requires.
The supplemental act provides that any
citizen of the State, who pays taxes for interest
or principal Of the public debt may raise the
question as to the validity Of any bonds or
warrants offered for funding, and thereby OBJ
struct and arrest the funding until judg-
nlent of a court is had. The court was Of
the opinion that this provision was without
precedent; that between the bondholders and
the State there is valid contract, into which
this provision introduces new parties who
have no interests; that where Q tax is
assessed and paid in due pursuance OF
law the taxpayer has no right to direct its ap-
plication or to interfere with its lawful dis
bursement; that the Legislature has no power
to interfere with contract once made; that
that body is without the right or authority to
enact the decree which thus violates the obi
cation Of contracts; that, having done so in
this case, the whole act is stricken
with nullity; and that the Board of Ii
quotation ought to disregard it accord
ingly. Judge Hawkins characterizes the
restraining and obstructing feature Of
the supplemental act as appalling" but
treats the Funding act No. 3 as merely au-
thorizing renewal of contracts between the
State and the, bond-holders, no compulsion
being used towards the latter.
The Judge takes occasion to say ob;ter that
the Funding act has none Of the features of
an act Of reputation, and is free from any
charge Or imputation of reputation.
The Supplemental Act No. II was intended
to operate as q protection to the holders Of
valid obligations, bonds and contracts, by
preventing the funding of false, fraudulent,
illegal and spurious bonds and other pretend
ed evidences Of debts due by the State. It
W. also intended to protect the taxpayers of
the State by preventing the issue Of
enofjnous sums in new bonds and largely
increasing the amount of interest
which they must pay. and Of the debt which
their property must ultimately redeem. The
act Of the extra session was intended to pre-
vent the partial and partisan Funding Board
from SO amalgamating spurious bonds and
warrants with those which are genuine that
fraud and illegality can never thereafter be
detected Under the Funding law the State
ID PuAVy w . AOW OVoVAoSV3 oASA VIC VNJOSV Va
the supplemental act is to enable the people
who constitute the State to guard themselves
against the consequences Of fraud in the issue
Of spurious and illegal bonds.
The latter act therefore conferred upon tax
payers the right to have the validity Of bonds
offered for funding inquired into before they
should become an inseparable part of the
new contract Of Indebtedness. Technically
speaking, single taxpayer may not be a
party to contract between another and the
State, whether it is contract for the payment
Of money or contract for the performance Of
work; but the interference contemplated by the
act is not the action of the citizen as party
to the contract He, as an individual, causes
inquiries to be made which interest all other
taxpayers, and these inquiries. when once
made and answered as to bonds or warrants
Of any class, were intended to be final as to
the whole of that class.
It became apparent, however, that the ex-
pectation Of those who supported the Supple
mental Funding bill in good faith was to be
uAobRPOAASOuS 0AA eAOs AeO HAOvASAOAo SOoAA
and would be used to the detriment of hold
ers of valid bonds. It became the interest Of
rings of Spectators to check the issue of new
consols in order that they might depress and
afterwards buy up at low rates the bonds
tainted by their own action, refund them and
realize large profit.
The supplemental act was plausible enough
to win the support of many true friends of the
State, but in reality would have benefited a
few spectators only, to the detriment of in
nocent holders Of many classes Of State
bonds.
The decision Of Judge Hawkins will, for
these reasons, be gratifying to the public.
jacob OFT,
GA r p E N T e r.,
$50 Magazine Street. Corner CalliopA,
u prepared to execute al orders in the Oar.
penter and Building line, with promptness, neat.
ness and dispatch. Oisterns made and repaired