The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-04-19
1ned himsslfto comments which arose properly
unnn the lace Of the bill [ ahould not have felt

| nned himsslfto comments which arose properly
upon the face Of the bill, I SHOULD net naye lei
propose TO ask. He was u member OF the stats
, Senate. and voted a. understand. against bli
No: 90 and in favor of bill No. 81. ,,.,.
He stands UP here and tells your Honor tina
In the enactment Of bill No 81 i was the deliber
ate purpose of the parties voting for 1t to make
an end Of the Pacific Railroad bill. How can ht
prove it2 He cannot prove it by the face Of this
document. He. then, can prove II only BY evl-
dence outside Of this record and / DEFY him C
make such proof. | tell him That the Premium
Bond bill would never have become q law except
| that q large number Of the men who favored the
Pacific railroad bill voted for it, tell him sec
ondly that when he says that those nen who
voted for the Pacific Railroad bill. and three days
afterwards turned around and voted 70 XII y
reputation as legislators -
] defy him to prove il by his co Senators. what
stgnil,canoe has this n your !, Hohors ml1d
lieved that there was no Inconsistency between
them. They recognized the Importance Of this
the Importance of settt ny the municipal DEBTS
Of this city and State. They recognized the New
Orleans Pacific Railroad rs q. valuable auxiliary
70 the carrying out Of the Premium Bond Pill.
Now. whom the gentleman undertakes to arralgn
his eo-Senators in this style outside Of the
record. | think it but Just that should call nm
Your Honor will not believe hat an intelligent
body Of men would stulify themselves rs this
| would stultify them. Further. II is well known
historical fact in this community that the Prem
Jun Bond bill had been in state Of preparation
| IL
doubtless gone before the committees and had
| been discussed over and over again. and | ask
my distinguished adversary to state whether or
not. in either committee, the question was ever
moOted of a conflict between these two bills and
most especially ask whether when tho Prem
| iUm Bond bill was under discussion. either be
| fore the committee or before the Senate. he or
any other senator advocated it on the ground
that IT would destroy our bill No, sirl If his
| assertion be true. there were n limited number
Of Senators who were playing Heather Chinee
trick upon the balance
merits. ms stnted by my colleague. II would not
be necessary in this case to go beyond the usual
rules Of construction general laws do not
repeal special laws But in this cass we can find
upon the very face Of the bill convincing evil
dence that there was never any purpose that the
one should conflict with the other Then. | will
! show your Honor that il. by possibility. there
| may BIO anv conflict. it would be 10 the damage
| Of the premium bond scheme fear that these
| advocates OF non taxation for the road have
| overeaped themselves in their zeal. because. us
| stated before in the opening argument il the
Court should hold that the Limitation in tho pre-
| MUM bond bill TO Is mills is absolute and un
| constitutional. the force Of the decisions will
drive the Court to hold that 5 mills If those Is
mi Is belong to u.s. and either the premium bond
left ont in the cold. The eleventh section Of The
premium bond bill 10 which call your Honors
special attenti N, reads as follows
SEC. 7. BE ii further enacted. etc. That no
tax Tor the payment oil bonds or interest on
ing sections. shall be levied either for the year
1876, or any year or years thereafie- by the city
Of New Orleans. and that all existing laws
uniring authorizing the City Council to levy
any tax whatsoever for bonds on jHt rest b0nds.
be and the same are hereby repealed
Now, o. we ask ANYTHING IL our bill inconsist,,
any tax for the payment Of bond or the intetest
on bonds A'e any bonds to be issued under
is an absolute unconditional denial Of the as
snmpttTn That i was intended g conliet with
bonds or the interest on bonds.
But II they insist that we must be excluded
from these five mills for four years. we have
stricken with paralysis largo enterprises in the
past for the same reasonsl that their bill is
fatally defective in its it e. Read the title from
one end to the other ana you find ~ allusion Of
any kind to the Pacific Railroad bill There has
never been case before u court of this state
auires tho obect5 of the bill to be set out in The
title. was more forcibly illustrated than in this.
And why2 Had this bill No. 81 stated in its title
that its purpose was to dest ~ the Paeifle Rail-
road bill No. 20. the General Assembly would
have been on IFS guard.
| think better Of their law than they d.. ]
want to see it executed. although il has certain
lottery features in it. bcli go It can stand by
tic side Of our law But If it wa INTENDED 10
destroy our law. we have perfect right Ia say
that i is null. by toe reason Of the absence in
the title Of this warning clause to the Legisla-
ture
Mr. Enstia in commenting upon this branch
Of the case did reat injustice to my colleague
He said that he seemed to skip rapidly over this
point and That he cited on one case the case "
the State against Kitty. I believe that was an
error In fat. but ut ali events. if only ono case
was cited 1t was because that ease dug tho whole
subject NJ 10y the roots
Tue case cited by my colleague is much
stronger than we need: and whyl tonstrning
the law rs they seek To- construe this would have
turned u convict out u the penitentiary who had
been sentenced for life. In deciding such ques-
tons Judges arc always more careful than IN
any ttners, be ause they involve PERSONAL lib
erty. A conviction had taken place under pre-
yous statute aud q subsequent statute was neid
by parties taking tie position Of the counsel on
mt tn
therefore. the conviction was null. The Supreme
Court held in the most emphatic language that
no such repeal could take place by implication.
On that point my colleague said:
That there may be no doubt abOu' this auPs
ton. refer TO the decision Of Judge Spoford in
the case of the State against Kitty. Il An. s08:
criminal case. He said:
The slave Kitty was tried before the Judge q
the First District Court Of New Orleans and a
jury Of six Shareholders pursuant to tho act If
March 8. 1855 Session Acts. D. 80. The aceusa
ton drawn up by the District Attorney contained
two counts, one for administering poison to
Levi Smeser and tho other for the murder of
Said Smelser,
The prisoner was found guilty without cap
ital punishment, and she. was sentenced TO hard
labor in the PeDitcn'iary for life by the Judge of
the First District Court OF New Orleans. on the
9th Of March. 1857. She has appealed to this
y, II is suggested that the tribunal which tried
and sentenced her was without jurisdidiln:
that the act Of March 8. 1855, to provide for the
trial of slaves accused of capital crimes in the
parish Of Orleans was repealed by the act Of
MilTtH ~. 1891. TsidLiNo W SiHNeSi oe6Sioh
Acts. 2l9.
"'These acts are not upon the same subject
matter. The former il local law providing n
local tribunal for certain specified cases. The
latter il "a general law applicable to the State at
large
"Our Act No 40 provides for special tax
which is only to be imposed if the people vote
it, and the Premium Bond bill is general law
imposing certain obligation.
The rule upon the subject. continued Judge
Spoiford is well stated in the recent work Of
ScdgWick upon statutory ana constitutional Jaw,
123
I'm regard to the mode in which lawsImay be
repealed by subsequent legislation. 1t is laid
negative words, will not repeal the particular
provision Of former one unless the two acts
are uTecouciiabW inconsistent. as, for instance.
the statute Eliz., G. g. that none shoH use trade
without being apprentice. did not take away the
previous statute. 4 and Philip and Mary, g. ).
declaring that no reareT shall use. etc.
THE reason and philosophy oiEhe rule is,
that when the mind OF the legislator has boon
turned to the details Of q subject. and he has
a.ted upon it, a subsequent statute in general
forms, or treating the subject in u general man
ner and not expressly eoutradicting the original
act shall not be considered rs intended TO affect
tho more particular or positive previous Eroyi@-
ions unless it is actually necessary to give the
latter net such construction. IN der that its
words sh II have any meaning at all :"
The force Of that reasoning is much stronger
i'm this case in view of the fact that the laws
were passed almost simultaneously. They ran
together in the Legislature, so to speak. upon
all fours.
In further vindication of that doctrine de-
sire to call your HOnOrS attention to q case from