New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-08-01

. a - - 49, 10 :sszs 80 a y : q
sUfN qp B x
to which It Is supplements and Is N At
tempt on the part Of the Legislature Il
control the action of the funding board
! AID thereby deprives the holders Of the
bonds and other evidences Of debt of theil
rights, as defined under act No. q 1874
and is, to that extent, violation Of
tho compact entered into between the
people Of the State and the bondhQ6ers
and is to that extent, unconstitutional
nun and void" Critically considered, he
rests his rights to force the board Of liqui'
dators to fund his bonds npon the sole
ground that theact of the Legislature, No.
II, of the session of 1875, is unconstitu.
tional. No objection is made to the form
Of this proceeding. or to the insuf6ciency
ofs the allegations in the petition. The
issue is made up by the answer of the
b61rd, as we'll as by the State, which de.
MES the validity and the legality of the
1875, conflicts With shs amendment to the
constitution, adopted iAsl74, which we
have already quoted, and the act No, ), Of
the acts of 1874. which this amendment was
Intended to make irrepealable and unalter-
able, by subsequent Legislature, The
act Of 1874 authorized the funding of tho
valid debt of the State, and authorized
tho board Of liquidation to issue hands
therefor. The validity Of the obligations
off in the fret instance. by the board,
with NE right q appeal to the courts
BY any claimant whose topds the Hoard
refund to fund. The amendment to
the Constitution provided that all binds
issued by the board should be. valid
obligation Of the State in favor Of
the holder thereof, and prohibits any
court from enjoining the payment OF such
bonds or the interest thereon. All holderss
of bands, Therefore, issued by the board
under this act. are protected in their rights.
The Legislature can pass no law affecting
their validity, for this would be impairing
a contract already contaminated. Buswe
do not understand that this prohibition ex-
tends beyond the bonds issued in con
formity with the statute under considera-
ton. The relator has made no contract
with the State under thit act. His bonds
are not bonds issued under this statute. He
simply claims the benefit of it's provisions.
He aAks that bonds be given him IN ex-
the first act the board wss given the power
to pass primarily upD the validity Of his
bonds; they certainly would not have been
funded if the board considered them in
valid. IT the decision had been againstl
him5he would have appealed 70 the courts
if he felt himself wronged. II the courts
had come to the conclusion that his debt
was valid one, the board would have
been compelled to issue the bondsas pre-
vided for by the act. In the last resort,
therefore, the decision of his rights de-
pended upon the courts. It was only those
obligations which.the board considered un-
questionable which it was authorized to
issue bondsfor. Now, the Legislature hae
seen proper to take away the absolute de-
termination of the validity of the claims
which were likely to be presented undef..
this act from the board of liquidation, and
give to any taxpayer the right to have the
Question of their validity. passed upon by
the. courts. ~ has also seen plppsr
to dbsignate certain outstanding bonds and
other evidences of debt as suspioiorss and
to prohibit the board from funding them
until stheir validity shall have been passed
upon by the court There is nothing that
we can see which 10 upconstitutiSGAl ihs&n
act of the Legislatu1 (which gives to the
citizens Of the State the right to see that no
claim set. up against it shall be paid Sntlis
the valiity thereof is ascertaiked. There is
No violation of an c6ntract with thefelator
by the act in question, because at the time
the act was paoBed NO contraot existed, I'M.
der the act of 1877, between him and the
State. The bonds Ne holds now are in the
same condition that they were prior to the
passage Of eitherDf the acts now under
Considerations 4
We, therefore, decide that the act Nd. 1ass
of tie acts passed at the extra session of
the Legislature of 1875, ana approved on.
the ssgenteenth Of Nay, 1875, doeshote tom
tiict with the amendment to the constitt ion
adoptsa in 1874, and is, therefore constitu-
tiOnal.
Tie next question is, whether the bonds
presentedf BY the relalprs are valid obliga-
lions against the State. The only boAds-
befOre us are certain bonds issaed under act
No. lis, approved March 26, 1867, for ex-
penses of building levees; also, same hDnds
alleged to have Issued under act OF the
Afteenth of February, 1866, ''for the pur-
pose OF paying certain debts" And we de-
sire % be distinctly understood that we are
bonds except those befcreQs and il the hands
of the relator. In so far ~ the levee bonds
are concerned, The evidence satisfies us that
those IN the possession Of the relator are
Mid obligations against the State, and that
they should DO funded. As regards the
bonds issued as alleged under act of
of February, 1866, we have only
to say that there is no act of the Legisla.
ture of that date which authorizes the
le649 VI any DOnu6. 1Qer0 Is an act OF the
twelfth q February, 1866, which author
ICES an issue. Probably these are the
bonds now sought tobe funded, but the al. |
legations in the petition are that they were |
issued undAr . certain act, and the bonds |
bear date Of the act under which they al
alleged to have been issued. There is
hare in tho proof which We |
San not supply
1t is thenstore ordered, adjudged and de. |
,reeA that in SO far a. relates to the bonds |
alleged to h6ke been issued under the |
,tatute approved February Is, 1866, that |
he judgment CT the district courtsbe |
wooded, annullol and reversed, and the |
application dismissed, a. in case of mon.
uit And it is further @dered, adjudged
md decreed thsS az regards the bonds in
he possession of the relatorzissued under |
Ict No. lis, approved March 26, 1861 for
expenses of building levees, and under act |
70. 81, approved February 25s 1870. for
work. done or to be done on the levees, and Y
described in his petition, and in his pos
ession, that tho judgment of the district.
curt be affirmed.
Chief Justice Ludeling dissenting.
IN 1mneMe publication.
One of the most important works author.
led by the last Congress was the compilaf
ion of an official record Of the war Of the
ebellio1k Fifty thousane dollars was
appropriated for this purpose. and the duty !
preparing tho records Nr the Congress |