The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-06-29

Jig uooASAoH aotbAiou w Wy ME.Athys sbs
act In question was attacked 40 ,incon
stitutional upon two grounds. Tht
court considered that only one OF the
grounds OF attack touched the merits o.
the suit. and 1t decided that that grount
was not well taken, and declined tt
pronounce upon tho remaining ground
and the constitutionality OF the act IL
still open to attack.
us conoede that all the statements made
In Mr.. Rays letter are strictly true
What do they proven They might have
some weightin lawsuit, but they would
not refute. nay, they would not touch the
hideous and irrefutable fact that by the
acts of the Legislature and the decisions
Of the courts referred to the State OF
Louisiana has been defrauded to the
amount OF elk hundred and seventy-two
thousand dollars OF consols repre-
senting the 41,120,0oo Of bonds issued
for the North Louisiana and Texas Rail-
road Company. There is no construc-
ton of the law; no pleadings or argu-
ments. no acts Of the Legislature nor
decisions OF the courts which can refute
this fact or Justify 1t and make 1t honest.
We have not attacked Mr.. Ray and his
associates on the ground that this trans.
action was not perpetrated under the
forms Of law. Our complaint does not
rest upon the irregularlty Of the pro-
eeedings and the absence OF form; 1t is
based upon the fact that under the
forms of law and with studied regular
ity Of proceeding a gigantic Outrage, u
stupendous fraud or robbery has been
perpetrated upon the taxpayers Of Lou
isana. In o decision rendered In this
ease-a decision which Mr.. Ray In mass.
Ing his acts and decisions has serupu-
lousy ignored-the Supreme Court OF
the United States assailipg and de-
nouncing the sale Of the road to
Ludeling, Ray and others in 1866 as o
robbery, said
A sale may have been conducted legally in
all its processes and forms and yet the pura
chaser may have been guilty Of fraud.
And again; and we may cay OF the
State 40 the Supreme Court said Of the
complainants in the private suit:
The complainants rely upon no irregularitty
of proceedings. They rely
upon faithlessness to trusts and common OBJ
legations. upon combinations against tho
policy of the law and fraudulent. and upon
confederate and successful efforts to deprive
them wrongfully Of property.
Granting then, rs we have said be.
fore. that Mr.. Rays statement Of facts
Ia correct. what does it amount tor
Literally nothing. The legislatures
which passed the acts, the Executive
who approved them. and the State
which rendered the decisions
upon which Mr.. Ray relies. were parts
Of u stupendous conspiracy against the
rights. liberties and properties of the
people of Louisiana. and Messrs. Lude-
ling, Ray and others. as the facts show,
joined Ii that conspiracy to perpetrate
this fraud upon the State. Ludeling Il
90. managed and manipulated the sale;
the legislative branch Of the conspiracy
passed acts validating it and appropri-
ating large amounts OF bonds to the
company organized by the
purchasers the judicial branch of the
Ubiquitous combination declared all the
proceedings legal, and the taxpayers
were cut Off from oil protection and
redress.
This is fair and very temperate
statement OF the case; far more temper
ate, indeed, than that made by the
supreme Court OF the United States in
The case OF jackson vs. Ludeling, which
Mr.. Ray has ignored and In which the
righteous indignation Of that august tri-
bunal IL Ill concealed under It's vigorous
characterization Of the proceedings OF
Messrs. Ludeling Il Go. in this very
matter. The simple publication Of that
decision would be the best and most
exposure Of the sophistry by
which Mr.. Ray weakly attempts to vim
iicate the perpretation OF a gigantic
fraud upon the taxpayers OF this State.
That decision declares the sale by which
Ludeling, Ray and others obtained pos
session Of the North Louisiana and
Texas road a fraud and conspiracy, null
md void, and affirms that they have no
light nor title to the property.
What, then, Is the force or value Of
lot 1903 OF 1868, granting the purchasers |
1t that fraudulent sale q charter? Was |
lot, then, the railroad stock which Lud-
,ling Il 90. transferred to the State In lieu
IL its second mortgage, by authority Of |
lot 81 OF 1872 stolen property, and can
lot the State protect its interests by |
against the men who were |
The perpetrators and beneficiaries Of
his fraud, and who are now the owners |
II judgment just rendered for large
sum Of money?
We do not pretend to be learned in
The law, and we shall not attempt to
'ollow Messrs. Ludeling, Ray & Co.,
through its intricacies and refinements. !
[t may be that ring OF spectators |