The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-04-13
THE "TRUE INWARDNESS" Of HE
FUNDING ACT.

NO. III.
In our last article on the funding net
and the proceedings Of the Board Of
Liquidation had hereunder CDEMocRAT
April 81 ii was stated that the Supreme
Court Of the State was counted upon to
render decisions legalizihg such or The
bonds OF the State as were held by the
Kellogg ring and their friends. although
they were of the class regarded rs fraud
uIent. and, therefore, tho scheme upon
which Kellogg has prided himself SO
much reducing the State debt was re-
garde1 by its authors as nearly certain
of success oven before ii had been placed
upon the statute book, il the creditors
of the State holding indisputably valid
bonds ooncurred in it. The Radicals
| had more than q majority Of the mem
bers Of the General Assembly, the Elk
eeutiyc Department Of the government
was entirely Radical, o majority Of the
Funding Board were Radicals,
and the Supreme Court was working
| in harmony with all OF these. We are
now to show that more than twelve
months prior to the passage OF the
funding act through the Legislature the
Court had rendered decision to Ger
tain extent legalizing tho Ludeling
bonds. the issue Of which had been
authorized by the acts 1os Of 1863 and 81
OF 1872 or rather recognizing the con
stltuionality and validity Of those acts,
to the extent and on the grounds that
tho plaintiff in the suit had pleaded
their unconstituiionality. Howell pre-
pared tho opinion, which was concurrod
in Ludeling pretended to recuse him
self This decision appears in the
twenty fifth volume OF the Annual Re
ports. page Co. The case was entitled
"The State Of Louisiana vs.. The North
Louisiana and Texas Railroad Com
pany." tho suit being ore to recover
$112, 900 paid by the state for the ma
tured coupons Of interest on the bonds
authorized by acts 10S and 81.
tho defendant railroad company hay
ing failed to deposit the money
in the State Treasury in accordance
with the provisions Of act tos. In this
|
bonds had been obtained by misrepre-
sentation and fraud nor were any Of the
holders Of these bonds parties to the
suit in their quality as boDdholdors.
Tho question of fraud underlying
the act was not raised by the State
and OF course was not considered by
the court. Tho suit being u sham pro
ceeding brought by the State ut the
instance OF Ludeling and his associates
they had the shaping OF the pleadings
under their own control. Attorney Gen
eral Belden being in collision with
them. and the real defects, nay, the
falsty OF the act No. 10S. the Tea
grounds and evidences Of its Illegally
and corruption were not presented t
the court. The question Of its want o.
conformity to4he constitution in respect
Of its title not containing any word OF
words to indicate one of the chic
objects and purposes OF tho act, j
not the sole object, was not raisec
nor passed upon; neither was the
grand question raised whether OF
not tho Legislature had been
induced to pass the act by the misrep
reservations and fraudulent conduct d
its bcnciiciaries. patent upon its very
face staring the reader from its pream
BILE. The title Of the act merely indicated
that it was q charter "to incorporate
the North Louisiana and Texas Rail
road Company" while the real purpose
was to grant subsidy Of the peoples
money Of $I,l22 900. la the title ther,
was not the slightest refe renee to sub
sidy. and the Court was careful t
limit and gudlify their decision Of the
question of constitutionality, determin
ling only that it did not violate article Ill
the particular article cited by plaintiff
For tho Information Of readers no
familiar with court pleadings we stat
that an act of the Legislature may b.
unconstitutional on one ground or or
several grounds. 1t may violate on,
article of the constitution, or it may VIC
late more than one II the violation o.
only one article be set up in the plead
ings the Court tests the act by that sin
gle article, although the Judge may b,
aware and may think 1t violates others.
That the act violated article III was
not alleged nor passed upon. The Ian
lguage Of the Court was as follows, How
oil, Associate Justice. being its organ
Tho State has, by making the act
1903 of 1868 the basis Of its suit, recog-
nizcd and affirmed it's constitutionality
IN regard to the adeq,tdte auuys uno
means prOride1 for the payment OF tn
current interest and principal of Mt
! bonds" ~ ''' .s3
"Upon the policy OF those enactments
and transactions facts 10S and 81 we
can give no authoritative opinion But
we can properly conclude that there is
such reasonable doubt as to their uncon.
stitutionality IN the respects referred to
| Il. 9. violation Of article III of the consti.
tution), as under the well settled julis-
prudence of this State and country to be
justified in not annulling them. n-
Hero it is obvious the decision was
intended to have only a limited scope.
There is nothing in it to prevent the
State from hereafter repeating acts lOS
of 1868, and 81 Of 1872, and refusing to
pay the interest on the bonds issued