The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-07-08
Nuw {lnr.rAns. Jutx I. ts7S.

Il
1 lars" This Ia mistake The only suit In whel
I | was ever employed for the parties referred "
wes the cult of jackson II A. N Labelling Ct ~
which involved the title to the ViekEbur1. shrevn
port and Texas HaiIroad, aud no bonds. y,
II II also stated that promptly advised W
Issuance Of osrtain eYnhs Y mo MORN r r9s'1
also m stake. Enyr no sueh aayines VIZ
consulted by the Governor ~ ~ whether p
could ha compelled 60 Hign and lHsun eeftnit
bonds recovered In o suit between the State ant
Tho lnpany. decided by The Supreme Court u
January. 1918 ! never wns ~ counsel ~ I'M
suit 81 In any way connected with IT, j MOVES
gave al opinion - 10 the legality u the bonds
| WINS 81 opinion that under tho decision. ~
: bonds ana could be legally compelled 10 d. 80
This opinion waH deliberately formed, and was
given % Tho Governor after Communication wth 4,
eminent juriat who nonaufted In IL. still think
IL was manifeBtly correct
II IA alHn mistake q say that pronounced !
eupay On Judge Labelling ut tho recent hearing
af hn case Of Jackson at al va Ludsling nt NJ ~
Tho Gireu court | did nothing If tho kind u u
true that did express my conviction That The
decision or TINT easo by The supreme Court q
The United Rtniea WINS erroneous. and that the
loriHou Of Judge Woods was correct. ] atil
think ~, and beliayn my opinion II widely
Ahared BY members Of the professions
Lot ms say IN conclusion that fully recognize
your right as journalist ~ the most liberal
criticism Of The clnims oi any candidate iot pub
LID Office. AT the same limo believe That yun
would not knowingly dp Injustice 70 my per
aonn aud professional character |. therefore
have lh"sa y ss y'qh liz afe y
ferred to.
am. sir respectfully y.oY9,r p9sdt saryytt ,r
Major II. j. Hearsey. Present.
We received tho above very courteous
note from Mr.. Hunt yesterday. and since
it's reception we have felt obligated to
inquire as fully as possible into the
facts. and we have done 50. We think
our statement Thursday WIS not on all
points. technically correct. yet we do
not Gnd that Mr.. Hunt In bis noto has
entirely cleared up his position In rela-
tion to tho bonds In question.
| Tho following statement Of the case
we believe Ia clear and correct, and will
be accepted by Mr. Hunt himself, Tho
original act In favor Of the North Lou
isiana and Texas Railroad provided for
the issue Of bonds to that company to
tho amount OF 1926. 900, secured by
second mortgage. Az long rs they were
In that shape tho State had some So
curity for the bonds. In this shape half
the bonds, we believe, were issued to tho
company. But IN 1879 m net was passed.
and late in the year approved by Gov
Warmoth. providing that the bonds re-
naming 10 be issued should be- changed
from mortgage bonds into bonds
In payment Of stock In tho rond.
The legality OF such q change
In tho character Of the original
contract WIS contested In the case Of the
Chattanooga bonds. amounting to
$500. 900. and declared Illegal and
unconstitutional. We arc not aware
that there has ever boen any decision
by which Ray and Ludoling recovered.
to use Mr.. Hunts phrase. the bonds to
be issued under this fraudulent net
Of 1872. IL In no doubt true that Mr..
Hunt was not attorney In the case In
which IL In presumed tho courts decided
that the original issue to the company
was valid It would be Of little benefit
to him 10 admit that he had never given
IN opinion IN favor or the validity Of
these bonds. Ii they were not valid.
we cannot presume that he would have
advised the Governor that he "could
be legally compelled to sign and Issue
the said bonds. II they were valid.
we are still perplexed 70 know how tho
Governor could DO legally compelled to
sign and issue them when the Supreme
Court, Chief Justice Ludeling being the
organ, decided In the case Of certain
bonds for nm improvement on Red River,
that. In the issue Of bonds authorized by
an act Of the Legislature, the judgment
and discretion OF tho Governor could
not be controlled by mandamus from
the courts. Under this decision we do
not understand how tho Governor could |
be legally compelled to issue and sign
such bonds even though they might DO
valid.
We have not proposed to attack the
professional transactions Of Mr.. Hunt,
and tho object OF our article Thursday
evening was not to prove that ne was u
disreputablo practitioner. Our purpose
was to show that when called as IN ad-
wiser Of the acting Governor. In a mat
ter In which the State was interested to
the amount OF half a million dollars. and
In which the people believed then and
believe now the adverse interest was a
fraud Mr.. Hunts views were given
against the public interest, and that he
Is. bv the opinion given IN that case, COM
mitted 70 the legality Of legislative sys-
tenn phich has nearly crushed The State.
We cordially concede that Mr.. Hunt
was not OF counsel In any case, directly,
involving these bonds, though we be-
lieve he was the attorney OF the parties
who claimed them In suit for the title
OF the road for the benefit Of which
the acts authorizing them, and
subsequently changing their charter,
were past. However, we do not hold
that this fact influenced his opinion.
We are not OF those who have 50 poor
an opinion Of our fellow men that we
believe no man honest and strong
enough to give a clear and conscientious
opinion, when called upon in public