The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-07-09

IHH AAlVNNnh y !.
The editor Of the DEMoCRAr Friday
received the following note frpm Mr.
W. - EEw oaIE;Ass, Jnly AZ. Z i ~ !.
s;r--Mv attention has Just been called 70 ~
,ticie IN vomr paper. which contains several
srronsons statements with regard to myself
II Is stated first. that had been .ne m,o hnna
o liza innnlyine hundreds Of thousands OF dol
lars This is mistake, The only sui, IL wni ~
was ,h ever s s%Pp sysssoD Ct al Isdeng e
VIII wbie XII involved he title The yicksbu.g shreve
port and Texas Railroad, and no eonHs sisea tho
,ssua ~ Of certain bonds 70 the North Louis
ana and Tetns Railroad COMPANY Th ,s.a y
also steke ~, gasS no sos s To- whether he
could be compelled to sign and issue Ger ~, ad
bonds recovered N sui, pasween w" o Uurt In
u uan,,arv iaIa I never was Of counsel ia tnat
suit, or in any way connected with " ! , III
gave an op ininn that ~ 'n under de decision The
t,oyernor was obliged 20 sign mn y, ,ssne , sn
bonds. and could be Legally eofnpe.,odd " and d waa
This opinion WIS Deliberately iormen amn I'm WI" an
given 10 Tho Governor after consutnion WY, ,,, III
eminent urist who eoncurred ~ u. SUI ''''''"
Mas ,9 ls mistate to say that pronounced
enogy on Judge Ludeling at the recon, nearing ~
Of the case Of jackson q 81 VI, f 10 Find 1t IL
,r I'm tbat did express my conviction that .he
decision d that case by the snpre9 ,hat ,bs
hal limit
a nS e,,e Of Judge Woods was correct, stlli
think so. and believe. my opinion is wioe''
shared by members q ne fnv recognize
your right ~ d journalist to the mos, lioe,iM
criticism of the claims Of any candioate LOT pu n
lie Office At the Same iime n;as sfney 70 nv per-
aonnl and professional character. !, .sn,,inn ~
have thought proper IT, call your a,s tiao rc ~
the errors OF fact containeo :" ''o "'''
am, sir respectfully TK9}qp WIZ IsHaf r. fTf5NT.
Major H. J. Hearsoy Present.
We received the above very courteous
note from Mr. Hunt yesterday, ana since
It's reception we have felt obligated 10
inquire as fully as possible into the
facts. and we have done 50. We think
orr abatement Thursday was not, on all
points. technically correct. yet we 90
not find that Mr.. Hunt In his note mas
entirely cleared up his position in reia-
ton to the bonds In question.
The following statement OF the case
wa believe IL clear and correct, ana VIII
be accepted by Mr.. Hunt himself. The
ORIGINAL act in favor Of the North Lou
isiana and Texas Railroad provided Tor
the issue Of bonds to that company 70
the amount of $i,225,O00. secured by
second mortgage. AS long as they were
in that shape the State had some Sc
curity for the bonds. In this shape nan
the bonds. we believe, were issued to the
company. But i'm 1879 an act was passed
and late in the year approved by GOV
Warmoth, providing that the bonus re-
naming to be issued should be changed
from mortgage bonds into bonds
I in payment Of stock In the ro"o
t The legality of such chahg'
: in the character of the origina
0 contract was contested in the case OF tn
!, Chattanooga bonds, amounting u
40 200 900, and declared illegal ant
unconstitutional We are not awar
/ that there has ever been any decision
j by which Ray and Ludeling recovered
o to use Mr.. Hunts phrase, the bonds U
II be- issued under this fraudulent &c
J. of 1872. 1t Is no doubt true that MI
It Hunt was not attorney in the case 1
ir which It Is presumed the courts decide
a that the original issue to the compan
was valid. It would be Of little benef
e these bonds. If they were not valit
d we cannot presume that he would hay
= advised the Governor that he "coul
- be legally compelled to sign and issu
/ the said bonds" II they were valic
10 we are still perplexed to know how tn
y Governor could be legally compelled
ID sign and issue them when the Suprem
Court, Chief Justice Ludeling being til
:, organ, decided in the case of certai
: bonds for an improvements on Red River
!" that, In the issue of bonds authorized b
10 an act Of the Legislature, the judgmen
and discretion Of the Governor coul
:. not be controlled by mandamus from
Il not understand how the Governor ooul
:. be legally compelled to issue and sig
!, such bonds even though they might b
y valid.
We have not proposed to attack tn
. professional transactions of Mr. Hunt
and the object of our article Thursda
: evening was not to prove that he was
disreputable practitioner. Our purpos
was to show that when called as an ad
:. wiser Of the acting Governor, In mat
!. ter in which the State was interested +
!. the amount Of half million dollars, an
= In which the people believed then an
:, believe now the adverse interest was
!, fraud, Mr.. Hunts views were givel
: against the public interest, and that h
= IS, by the opinion gire1, IN that case, CON,
= mitted TO the legality Of a Legislative sys
:, tenn which has nearly crushed the State
We cordially concede that Mr.. Hun
was not of counsel in any case, directly
: involving these bonds, though we be
lieve he was the attorney of the partie:
, who claimed them in suit for the title
I Of the road for the benefit of which
{ the acts authorizing them, anc
. subsequently changing their charter