New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-04-12
SINGLE COPIES: FIVE GENTS.



March II. 1875, Judge Woods rendered
decision in the case of H. 5. McComo We.
the Board of Liquidation. The question
arose on the demurrer fled by the defend
ant to the Injunction granted plaintiff
against the funding of the bonds issued to
the Levee Company. Judge Woods decision
concluded as follows:
It is objected to this bill, that in effect
the State Of Louisiana is q party, and that
ton Of the United States f0rbids such a
suit.
This objection is answered by reference
to the cases Of Osborne vs. Bank of the
United States. 9 Wheat, 738; Davis vs.
Gray, l6 Wal, 900. In the latter case the
court says that the cause of Osborne vs.
the Bank decided Il, that q circuit court Of
the United States may lDjOin State officer
from executing . State law in conflict with
the constitution of the United States when
such execution will violate the rights of
complainante; (2) that when the State can
not be made party, the court may decree
against the officers of the State, in all re-
tpects as if the State were party to the
record, and (3) in deciding who are the par
ties to the suit the court will not look be-
You'd the record.
l1lS aUt0OrlCy seems 10 answer Cuo OUJeC-
tion to the jurisdiction of the court.
: The case is this: The State of Louisiana
has entered into contract with certain OF
her creditors. Certain officers of the State.
without authority of any valid law, but
presuming to act under law of the Legisla-
ture, which is unconstitutional and there
fore void and no law TACT of February 20,
1879, are about to violate the contract OF
the State and iptlict irreparable injury
upon the complainant. The authorities
cited sustain the jurisdiction OF the court
and justify it in interfering to prevent the
mischief threatened.
1t is insisted by the defense that the At
torney General OF the United States ls the
only proper person to bring suit to have an
act of the Legislature declared uncOnstltu-
ti0nal and void.
The authorities cited to sustain this propo.
sition (Doolittle vs. Supervisors, Is n. T..
Joyce on Injunctions, 746), cOncede that
this may be done by private person when
the act complained of involves some pecu-
liar damage to his individual interests.
This case tails clearly within this excep-
tion. 5.
NV conviction ie, therefore. that the de-
murrer to the bill is not we'll taken. and
that the prayer for Injunction pendente lite
ought to be sustained.
The Board Of Liquidation appealed, and
the Supreme Court Of the United States
amended the decision in some respects.
The decision of Judge Woods was strongly
in support of the funding bill, but against
the proposition, made under act of Febru-
ary 20, 1875, to exchange consolidated
bonds for levee bonds, dollar for dollar,
while holders of other securities only re-
ceived at the rate of sixty cents on the
dollar.
Governor Kellogg yesterday telegrapbed
for an abstract of the decision, and received
the following reply, which is almost the
same az the report to be found in the court
record:
WASHINGTON, April IL, 1876.
Governor w!.,iam P. Kellogg. New OrlearsI
Decree of the United States Circuit |
Court confirmed so far as it prohibits the |
funding of the debt due the Louisiana
Levee Company in the consolidated bonds |
issued or to be issued under the funding act |
Of January, 1874, and reversed as to so |
mach thereof as prohibits the issue of any |
other bonds or obligations of the Levee |
Company IN payment OF its debt.
It will be seen that this decree protects |
the interests which have accrued to the |
State and it's creditors under the funding |
act. prevents the unjust discrimin alton pro-
posed under act of February 90, 1875, but
ioes not prevent the State from settling its |
iebts due to the Levee Company by bonds
ssued in accordance with the law.