The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-06-13

Of 1875. Now the Legislature has seen proper
to take away the absolute determination Of
the validity Of the claims which were likely
| TO be presented under this act from the Board
Of Liquidation + II has also seen
proper to designate certain outstanding bonds
and other evidences of debt rs suspicious and
10 prohibit the board from funding them until
thei, validity shall haze been passed upon by
The COURTS" (pp. 5Bt, 5s2
The further reasoning Of the court leads
them to the second proposition, (pp. bs2, $500
and thereupon they say. Tho next question
Is whether the bonds presented by the relator
ForstalD are valid obligations against the
State We desire 10 be distinctly Nm
derstood that IRE are expressing no opinion
upon The paiiday of dnv bonds except those
before ne md IN The hands or The rslator."
/ now submit to impartial minds whether
the requirements of act Il OF 1876, TO wit, that
by final decree Of the Supreme Court it shall
have been declared that the issues in litiga-
ton are, IN toto. legal and valid obligations
against the State; that tho same were issued
In strict conformity to law, and not In viola
tion of the constitution of this State
or of tho United States, and for
o valid consideration "have been complied
with. taking these decisions In their most
favorable light; and also whether ON tho
contrary. the rulings Of the Supreme Court
were not by that tribunal purposely made
limited and restrictive, and Intentionally con-
| fined to tho bonds before them and none
others. and submit further whether any
man seriously impressed with the obligations
of M oath could, aided by these decisions
alone, disregard the imperative mandate ex-
pressed in section Of net II of 1876, compris-
Ing these three levee issues in these words:
''1hat the following issue Of bonds and war
rants are declared questioned and
| doubtful rs to their legality and validity. and
the said Board Of Liquidation are herebu pro
hibiied from issuing bonds authorized by see
ton OF act No. of 1874, in exchange there
for, until the legality, validity and eonsidera-
ton Of The same tho issue. not particular
| honds) shall have been tested under the pro-
visions of this act, and final decree rendered
as to thrir legality. validity and eonsidera-
ton. especially when he Is gently reminded
of the provisions Of section 8. act . of 1874
which subjects every member of the board to
be punished by u fine Of not less than $4,000
and by imprisonment ut hard labor for not
less than ono year for improperly exchanging
any Of the consolidated bonds.
And still, Mr.. Editor, TO show how ham
pered the board is, and satisfy the most ex-
acting creditor of the State, let us eoncede
that. notwithstanding the peremptory man
dates Of the laws and the restricted scope Of
the decisions, the board might seek the spirit
and intent Of the law and in applying them
fund the prohibited bonds; yot. we would in
quire, how can the board, entertaining tho
grave doubts which must necessarily arise
from these limited DEGREES. override the more
recent decision rendered thirtieth of April
1877. in the State OK rel. Exchange Bank VS.
the Board of Liquidation No e505, not yet
published, by our Supreme Court Tho issue
presented in this case was on five bonds of
the State issued to the Baton Rouge. Crosse
Tete and Opeousas Railroad for $1,000 each
lone OF the issues questioned by act No. II of
1879 and wns offered via mandamlis In It's
reasoning, Chief Justice Manning being the
organ, first affirming that by act No. of
1874 the board had discretionary power. tho
Court say;
"But the act Of 1875 deprived the board of
this discretion g,tond the bonds enumerated
In 1t. 80 far from imposing upon its mem
bers the duty Of inquring touching the va
lidity, or legality, or consideration of these
bonds, the act commanded them to assume
that they were invalid. illegal and of no CON
sideration. and prohibited them from deciding
the questions prohibited them from ex-
changing the bonds until another designated
tribunal had decided it for them.
"Under the act Of 1874 it is the duty of tho
hY,nS eat -
State, with discretionary power to reject
such claims as did not seem proper, and with
the right to the holder to test the merits Of
tho rejection before u competent court. I'm
der the act of 1875 it is the duty of the board
to reject the bonds enumerated In it, and the
holder of them must himself lift the cloud
| which that act declares rests upon them and
vindicate their validity, legality and good
consideration by obtaining decree from the
court of the last resort In his favor. That
1rhich Was the duty Of ne board to do under the
first act, rs IT'S IMPERATIVE DUTY NOT TO DO
UNDER THE SECOND
Further on the Court saws: ssThe writ of
mandamus is not fitted to ascertain tho valid
ity of bonds that are made doubtful, not by
presumption of law merely, but by an express
4
questioned by act No. II of 1875 can be tested
only by a direct action mot by intervention
nor by mandamus), and therefore affirm the
Judgment OF the lower court refusing the
mandamus prayed for
Now, having before you the prohibitory law
Of 1874 and the Jurisprudence Of the State
| wherebyit is solemnly deereed that no inter
locutory order will suffice as a test, but that
"a direct action and final decree therein are
Indispensable to establish the legality and
validity OF each and every ISSUE of bonds
questioned by said act, how can you, or any
one else in good conscience attach the least
blame to the action of the Board of Liquida-
ton. or impugn the motives of any member,
and ask you, as an act Of simple justice to
say whether, under similar circumstances,
you would not have pursued the course
| r., Nf,l1 I.