The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-12-29
A CARD.


The State on the. relation Of the State Uniyer-
S!ty OF Louisiana and Agricu ural and Me-
chan M.,, College vs. 4 Dubucet Treasurer.
feel Q delicacy, which will be appreciated by
my brethren OF the bar. In making any pub ica-
al business: but | hope that when they have
read this card through they will be Of the opin-
ion that am juetifiable In publishing it. |
| feela very great reluctance to figure in public
n rs, lawyer who has advised and conducted a
interest in which, after having been entirely
successful in eou,t it is now made to appear
that the litigation. as to any practical result,
| lawyer of my aga and long standing at the bar
| to rest under such an mputaton.
pl Upon the question OF funding the Seminary
My understanding clearly was that he desired
to ,t, have whatever questions Of law wee IN
iudicially determined. and that if the board Of
| directors of the college should concur, he
would entrust to my professional charge the
porary absence OF the Governor the board of
| directors Of the college authorized the presi-
Ter. and Col. Boyd employed me- The suit was
brought and won in the District Court. and an
appeal was taken, aud the Treasurer and Sec
presented them in obedience to the judgment
Of the court to he Funding Board to be funded
which refused to fund them.
was very much surprised, taking the news
paper reports 70 re correct, that Coy. Nichols.
who had consulted and advised wi me as to
the institution Of the suit. to test as under
,unding of the Seminary Bonds. and to whom
t had a1d the R eton IN
own Judgment. 7 hadd! redrawn it. stated at the
were presented for funding in obedience to ot the
judgment Of the court, that there were various
questions OF law that he thought should 1e
be taken BY the Funding Board. tfthis decara-
Il rs very aer ba 9ns Coming
GERS q the State vege formally caIis S u E
questions Of law relating 10 the funding OF the
seminary Bonds, that would be pertinent to the
discrimination of the application for a peremp-
to present them to the Funding Beard to be
funded. Ii another mandamus were now sued
out against = he Funding Board to fund those
law officers of the State who defended the first
suit to assume that anything further could be
urged in the second suit than was set up in the |
Something Is said In this newspaper report. |
about this being trust fund, and that the fund |
ing act is not therefore applicable The funding |
act itself makes no such discrimination. It is |
difficult TO perceive. in law or morals. any diff
ference between repudiating 40 per cent of an |
has received the money. and refusing to pay in |
t h,d On more u3 than 90 per cent upon bonds
neld by the state herself, through her officers |
for the benefit of educational institutions of the
state. As far as lar is concerned no LAWYER
whose opinion on any subject is worth one dol
lar. could be found to say that the State had
the rtgh to do either one or the other. But the
state, being exempt from suit alike in State and
Federal courts though il has moi the rigN has
the poiner to do it, From the time of the insti-
tuition Of the funding system it has not paid
one cent of interest on the trust fund repre-
sented by the Seminary Bonds. and there is no
certainty that it ever will
If the purpose and intent of the State author
tiles conneced with tho Funding Board are
hat the state slall provide for the paym Mt OF
interest on the Seminary Bonds. dollar for dol
ar, as they now stand and they are able to |
larry that purpose into execution then their
purpose is highly commendabe and the carry
ng OF It into effect will be still more commend
lble: If, however. their action in refusing to
und the Seminary Bonds was based upon this
ground they should have said so. which they
nave not,
deg HARRY r. KELLY |