The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-07-29
their refusal to fund the bonds presented by the

| relator in this suit, was proper.
| In the trial OF the issue below, evidence was
General OF the legality and validity of the bonds
in this suit, the bonds were offered in evidence
and the originals are brought up before ms. We
are thus enabled to pass upon the question oil
their legality. validity and good consideration,
and to ascertain whether they have the features
or qualities declared indispensable by the act oil
1876 and we find that they are legal and valid
obligations Of this State, that they were issued in
strict conformity to law, and not in violation OF
the constitution Of the United States or Of this
State, and for valuable consideration.
We might stop here, and leave still open tbs
question whether final decree OF this court
upon one bond was sufficient warrant to the
board to fund all bonds OF the same issue. But
in matter Of such large public concern, where
the interests and public credit OF the State are
in some sort involved. we have not thought 1t
improper TO accept the invitation OF the law OIL
GERS OF the Government to define with more
precision what is that "anal decree" which the
act of 1875 requires every holder Of questioned
and doubtful bonds" to obtain before he can
compel the board to fund them
1t ia not necessary that every holder OF any
bond, or the holder OF large number OF bonds
OF the same issue, should obtain q Judgment OF
this court upon them before they can be funded,
il there has been final decree rendered upon
other bonds OF the same issue.
But, on the other hand, such decree upon
bonds of certain issue does not OF itself vail
date the whole Of that issue in such manner and
with such effect as to deprive the Board Of Liqui-
daticn OF the power to exercise any discretion
whatever in relation TO the funding of any bonds
that may be presented TO them.
The propristy and necessity Of this construction
will be apparent upon a brief statement of the
legislative acts touching it. The funding act,
acts 1874, page 49, constituted q board through
be consolidated, and directed that the holders Of
bonds or warrants shall present them to the
board for exchange; II majority OF the board
shall reject any bonds or wSrrants thus presented
the holder OF them might apply by petition to the
proper court for relief and il final Judgment shall
be rendered in his favor for relief it should then
be the duty Of the board to fund his bonds or
warrants.
Another act was passed in the next year. acts
1875, p. Ito, which contained list OF bonds that
the General Assembly pronounced questioned
and doubtful" and reversed the duty of the board
as to them. +
The language of tho act is, that the following
issue OF the bonds and warrants, so far as the |
same may be now outstanding, are declared |
questioned anddoubtfnl."
We held last winter, Exchange Bank Va. Board !
OF Liquidation, not yet reported, that the holder
the board. by mandamus. to fund them until it |
was fortified by decree to that end. |
decree upon one or more Of the same issue re-
moves the whole OF the issue from the list of ques-
toned and doubtful bonds, but they instantly fall
in the condition OF al other bonds that were
never on that list. The board have the right to |
refuse to fund any and all bonds and warrants. |
Its duty is to refuse to fund all that come to |
hem tainted, without regard TO the fact whether
they are in the questioned list or not. The fund
ing aot contemplates q refusal, and provides |
remedy by petition to the proper court for relief |
The supplemental not makes it the duty OF the |
board not to fund certain issues. decree upon |
one bond of either OF those issues relieves the |
board of the obligation not to fund Others OF the
same issue, but it does not impose upon the board
the obligation TO fund all of that issue. As to all
other bonds Of the same issue as those. declared |
valid by this Decree the board has the same dis
erection that it has touching bonds that we're not |
in the questioned list, and it must exercise that |
discretion.
We now warmly urged to 20 further and to |
rule that the board must fund. without discre-
lion, all bonds OF the same issue, IL any one bond |
1f that issue has received this courts tmgrindt4r.
We are told that such ruling is required to sus-
ta the public credit. and without it cloud will I
rest on certain classes OF public securities.
1enseness Of that shadow thrown over the list OF
questionable bonds by the Legislature On the 7
7th OF May, 1875, that body, in solemn form, de-
Jared there were bonds Of the State, to the
,alidity. This was legislative warning by the
State to the Board OF Liquidation and to her
Judges to permit no bonds Of the prescribed list
% be funded without scrutiny, nor until they had
,een declared legal and valid obligations OF the
state, and that they had been Issued in strict
conformity to law, and not in violation Of the
constitution OF this State or Of the constitution
II tho United States, and for a valid considers
ion.
That there were some bonds in this list that
lad these requisites is inferrable from the legis
alive declarations which put them under the BAN
We cannot deprive the Board OF Liquidation OF
he power OF scrutlnizing each separate bond
nd warrant, and accepting it for funding or re-
Getting it, as the act OF 1874 empowered it to do
And tho fact that we do this ia the surest war
ant to the holders OF the genuine bonds that pub
ic faith is to beguarded and preserved.
Therefore it is ordered, adiudged and decreed,
hat the judgment OF the lower court is affirmed,
which refuses to make the mandamus obtained
y relator peremptofy because of the decree Of
his court rendered in suit No. $50.
And it Is further ordered that the bonds get
orth in the REALTORS petition are now declared to
70 legal and valid obligations of the State OF
louisiana, and they were issued in conformity to
aw, and not in oation OF the constitution of the
United States OF OF this State, and for valid
consideration.
1t is further ordered that the relstor pay the
costs of both courts.
ANOTHER DECISION ON STATE BONDS.