The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-06-29
THE NORTH LOUISIANA AND TEXAS
RAILROAD.

IA
RAILROAD.
Mr.. John Rays letter, which will be
found in another column Of the DEM
puaAT this morning, Ia, we believe, the
first reply he and his associates In the
North Louisiana and Texas Railroad
Company have made to tho many
charges of fraud preferred against that
corporation. Mr.. Rays letter 10 very
clear and lawyerlike statement of the
company's case, and ID, we assume, the
very best that can DO presented. Mr. Ray
Ia himself a man Of large ability; sew
eral of his associates are also men of a
high order Of intellect; he has q large
pecuniary interest involved, and his
honor and integrity 90 man are at
stake. No man could have higher or
greater incentives TO put his defense.
and that OF his associates, In It's best and
strongest light, and upon its firmest
grounds, and 1t would be contrary to
reason and common sense to suppose
for moment that Mr.. Ray has failed
TO do this, or has omitted to make a
single possible argument In behalf OF the
North Louisiana and Texas Railroad
Company We therefore regard his letter
az his complete defense, and regarding 1t
ma euch we sincerely regret that 1t is q
mere tissue OF spe cial pleading, a skill
full evasion Of the real merits OF the
question, and that az q defense against
the charges OF conspiracy, fraud and the
plumber Of the public treasury 1t Is
utterly worthless.
The charges preferred by the Demo-
GRAF against the leading and controll-
ing spirits of the North Louisiana and
Texas Railroad Company are, that,
through sheriff sale. made In 1866, the
parties composing that company de-
frauded the stockholders and bond
h elders out OF the property Of valuable
railroad by purchasing 1t at fraudu-
lent sale for nominal price; that
through various acts OF corrupt Legisla-
lures they secured charter and
large amount Of State bonds; that
through the decisions OF imbecile and
then Of infamous courts they had the
scandalous acts OF these Legislatures
declared valid, and thus imposed upon
the State u funded debt Of $872, 900, re-
presenting $1,t2o,0oo Of fraudulent
bonds, with interest for many years,
and that the State has not received one
dollar Of property. benefit or compen-
sation in return.
Mr.. Ray meets these charges by stat
ing; first, that the Supreme Court of
1866, In two suits, decided that the sale
OF the railroad was valid. Second, that
the constitutional convention of 1868
oil judicial sales made an
terror to 1868. Third, that the Legis-
lature in 1868 granted the pur-
chasers charter, and finally, that
various decisions OF the Circuit Court Of
the United States and Of the Louisiana
Supreme Court, Of infamous memory,
rendered decisions validating the sale
OF 1866 and the subsequent acts Of the
Legislator egranting charter, bonds, etc.
Mr.. Rays statements, weak as they are.
are in some cases totally incorrect, and
in Others only true in part. The decision
OF the Supreme Court in 1866, If our
memory Is not at fault, determined the
validity Of the sale as between Branner
& Co., and not as between the stock
holders. The Convention OF 1868 de-
clared that all judicial sales, executed
contracts, etc., made in good faith, etc.,
should be valid. That Convention. cor
rupt and revolutionary as it was, did not
attempt to validate fraudulent sales
such as the Supreme Court OF the United
States has declared the sale Of the North
and Texas Railroad to Lude
ling s. Co. to be. But even lift had done
so, what effect would it have had2 No
can validate judicial frauds
any more than they can validate
the title Of highwayman to
the property he has robbed and
murdered to possess himself Of.
The court of which Judge Kennard
was q member did not render de-
,ision settling the constitutionality Of