The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-04-13

under act 10S Of 1863. ana purchased by
them tho Board pretending that de
cree of the court was necessary to-
authorize them to fund the same.
In this case also tho real interests
of the State were unprotected by the
court. The Attorney General, who ap-
peured for the Board. raised the ques-
ton uf the non -conformity TO the con-
sttuton Of the title Of act lOS OF 1868,
but the court Morgan dissentingl dc
cided that "the question had been dis-
posed Of already in the case OF the state
VS.. the North Louisiana and Texas Hail-
road Company, - Annual, page %.
| The dishonesty Of tho court III so de-
Gliding will appear upon IN examination
and comparison Of the two decisions.
In the decision in the case OF Matthew
Morgan Il Sons the court tby Iallaferfo)
declare. well knowing tho declaration
to be u false ono. that they had pre-
yio,sly decided that act 1903 did not
violate article III OF the constitu-
ton. That they had never decided any
such thing we have shown above, ana
as any one can see by reading Mr.. JUS
tice Morgan's dissenting opinion In the
Morgan ease and the opinion OF Tue
court in the 25th Annual, in the case OF
the State vs. the North Louisiana ana
Texas Railroad Company. The censure
to he pronounced upon tho court Tor thls
palpable violation of the truth ana con
tradiction OF their own records does not
apply to Judge Morgan, whose OPINION
il regarded as unanswcrable, while it
reflects severely upon his colleagues.
This dissenting opinion is here intro
j,Iced. because it has not. to our know
ledge anywhere boon published as yet,
and because it fully eustnins what mas
been alleged against the court IN THIS
article:
"lIoygnn. 4ssociatp Jisfice dissenting;
I do not think that the case at bar Is
governed by the decision ofthecase OF the
State VS.. the North Louisiana aud Texas
Railroad Company. % An, =. 565. !
do not find from an attentive peIusal OF
the opinion then pronounced, that the
constitutionality Of act No. IoS, 1868, was
therein put ut issue OF passed upon.
The court said that "tho iefenso rests
solely upon the act 81, of 1872. The
between the State which issued the
bonds and tho railroad company, for
whose benefit they were Issued, and the
holders Of the bonds and their rights
are not before us Nor Is there any
claim before us to enforce tho payment
Of any Of said bonds The allegation
In tho petition is that the bonds which
the relators wish to have funded are
good and valid obligations Of the state,
issued in accordance with legislative
authority. and in compliance with pre-
scribed conditions, and that they were
! bought in open market by the present
holders, and for good and, valid con
sideration Tho answer denies gen
orally. pleads that the act 10S. Of 1868. Is
unconstitutional and calls for strict
proof Of the allegations contained in the
I petition. The issue Joined then was
!. That the obligations are valid obi
cations Of the State. and
O. That REALTORS bought them in open
market. baIore maturity, and for gooe
and valid consideration Eelators held
the affirmative Of this issue, and thoy
were bound to establish It. They have
, not in my opinion, done 50. | find M
evidence in the record TO show whe1
J they bought tho bonds or how, or tina
they gave any consideration for them
Failing in this think their suit should
be dismissed"
Can there be any doubt after this tina
an honest court would override the de
cisions in both Of these cases?
These decisions show how wei
founded was Kellogg's reliance upol
tho court for an enforcement Of tn
funding act and the Iegalizing by TIL
court Of such bonds and obligations n
he desired to have funded, and it vii
hardly do for the members of the Fund
ing Board to plead ignorance Of wha
!, has been perfectly plain to every ma
in louisiana having grain Of sense
The facts establish that the court was il
; collision with Kellogg, and every intel
! ligent lawyer in New Orleans has beel
aware Of it ever since Kellogg took pos
session of the Office Of Governor. TIL
, court made him Governor by their de
cison in the Returning Board case il
1872 They have been in alliance, per
sonal and official, ever since.
Our next article will contain an eX
animation Of the proceedings and o
the inner workings of the Funding
DDuIu lItUl6tlNtS, anu We Sllttl1 ojloF
|, that they funded bonds OF question
able and fraudulent character, even be
fore the Supreme Court bad passec
upon their validity, and therefore thei
refusal to fund certain other question
able and fraudulent bonds before The
I court had passed upon them was mere
pretence ON their part. We shall shoy
, that Kellogg and his ring constituted {
majority Of the Board, and overrulec
] such Of its members as voted for the
rejection Of obligations deemed by then
not binding upon the State. We shall
also attempt to show that these fraud
, ulent bonds have not been go merged il
new ones as to be beyond the reach O
the courts when they are composed Of
judges who desire to protect the people
against fraudulently contracted debt.
|