The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-02-19
ACT 81 OF 1872.
rmpertant Decision Of the Supreme Court.

AtA Oh VF AosSs
rmpertant Decision OF Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court OF the State, on Wednesday
iast, rendered an important decision In case la
which the validity Of the free school bonds was
involved.
The deeieion will no doubt be read with inter
est. II was a. follows
State OF Louisiana OK rel, 4. J..Durant ". The
Hoard al Iiaujdstion. --lseletor alleges that he
Il Inc owner of three free school fund bonds, is.
sued under act No. ls2, 10Th March, 1857, and OF
twelve ceupons due thereon that ne acquired
ssid bonds by purchase from the State at eale
shereof made by the Auditor and Treasurer under
section OF act 81 Of 1872, and paid for them with
5000 certificate of Indebtedness, issued to him
sof profesai nal services, and duly registered AZ
provided In aaid act; that on the 2Ath OF January,
1874, the funding act was passed, providing for
the funding Of the outstanding obligations OF the
state: that the said hree bonds and coupons are
part of the obligasions OF the State, fundable
under sad act; That the said bonds are OF the
slsss designated az doubtful by the supplemental
funding bill, act No. II Of 1875, pp. s.-1to; and
chat the Hoar of liquidation refaseB to fund them.
Wherefore he prass er mandamue. which was
directed TO issue i.isi,
The Funding Board, as cause why said bonds
should not be funded, for answer
Il saeherally deny reatois allegation.
q Hay the bonds sued upon are not valid
obligations Of the y ate in the hands OF relator.
That the cot 81 of 1879 is, far as 1t authorizes
the re isaue OF said bonds void.
a That the state received no valid or suffi-
cient consideration for said bonds, and that tha
relator is the first holder fron the State with full
notice.
Upon these issues The case was tried the
gJouft discharged tho rule and refused the man
damus, and felator prosecutes this appeal.
The testimony elbows that the relator purchased
these bonds at the sale Of the Free School Fund
bonds, made by the Auditor and Treasurer, under
section g. OF act 81 of 1872, and paid for them by
certificate Of Indebtedness for $4,000, issued for
professional services rendered the state at Wash
mgton. and duly registered according to the frat
eeetion OF said act.
The counsel for the Board insist in their brief
that this Hut Ia prematare, since the Supple.
mental Funding ACT declares that the Board
ahall not fund the 9 bonds until q final decree OF
the supreme Court established their validity and
legality. that this decree OF the supreme Court
10 condition PR cedent to the relators right TO
proceed by mandsmus that the relator shouid
have arat brought = regular suit against the
Board and established the validity OF his bonds,
and then have proeseded by mandamue IL the
Board refused TO tund them. Had this objection
been pleaded in limine there might have been
more force In 1t, but the defendant chose TO 80
10 trial on an answer which put the validity aud
fuadability OF the binds In relator's hands as
isene.
This Court must try the issues presented,
whether in The petition or answer The law alb.
hors litigation and multiplicity of actions. As an
original proposition we see no good reason why
the question OF validity OF bonds should not be
cumnlated with proceeding ior mandamus, II
would ht least cave coats, dimiuish litigation.
and hasten results but there is more serious
defepNe interpused to restor'a demands. The
board alleges that the act 81 Of 1872. directing
ths sale OF the free echool bonds In void as VIC.
htive of the act of Congress- OF the 10Th OF Feb
ruary, ls4s, and of article 139 Of the constitution
efthe State.
This "moro serious defense" Nas tho one
which the Court specially considefss, and after a
lengthy and exhaustive review OF the law and
the provisons Of the constitution bearing On IL,
the following conclusions were reached, to-wit
In our opinion this act 81 OF 1872 not only vio-
iates the act OF Congress, and the legislation
Hereunder, and the constitution, but was an act
Of spoliation intended and designed to deplete
the treasury OF every available asset or fund In
M. These school bonds we're supposed to be
more salable than Auditors warrants and oortifi-
Gates OF indebs sedness, with which the State had
been delused; hence some device to get hold OF
them had to be coneocted, aud act 81 was the
result. Some of these bonds were, 1t appears,
not even negotiable; hence act 81 provides and
directs that in such case the Auditor should in
dofse them with words TO the effect that they
were hereafter payable to bearer.
The interest OF these school fund bonds was
pledged for the payment of the interest annually
due to the several townships for school bonds
seld.
The Sd section Of act 81, directing the Audi.
tor to Annually estimate what would have been
due TO the free echo fund If the same had not
been abolisher, and to levy and collec q tax to
pay interest the eon, il not compliance with
the act of Congress, nor does 1t relieve the meas
ure Of the character we have already given it.
We regard act 81 90 violating the faith and So.
emn pledge of the State; that the State quad
these bonds wss and is mt re trustee, and that
the acts Of Congress, and the legislative ac
hereunder created obligations on the part of
tha State in favor of the inhabitants of the va
rious townships and other beneficiaries which the
State is not at liberty "to abolish at its plea
sure.
We therefore regard the sale OF theae free
school bonds held by no relstor TO be null and
virtue oil the pre- ended 8 lie, under section Of
said act 81. The judgment Of the lower court
oischsrging the rule Risi, and refusing the man
GaInus, Is afhrmee, with costs in both courts. :