The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-06-13
LETTER FROM HON. LOUIS BUSH.
OBJECTIONS To THE ACTION OF THE
FUNDING BOARD RENEWED.

|
An Exhaustive Discussion of the Law and
the Decisions Of the Courts on
Act No. II Of 1875.
| Mr.. Editor-The various articles which have
recently come under my observation relative
| to the Board Of Liquidation and It's action,
and the criticisms made, directly and by
| innuendo, as to tho legality and propricty OF
the course pursued, tending more or less To
| affect the credit of the State, notably the card
of my friend Oscar ]. Forstall and your ar
| ticle, "Forstall va the Funding Board" pub
lished In your edition Of May 80, 1877, compel
me to believe that erroneous impressions pre-
| vail. whence false conclusions are drawn, which
| ask leave to attempt to correct, solely with
view of rectifying mistakes which exist and
giving those who may be Interested clear
insight into the action Of the board and the
grounds upon which it Is based.
You arc well aware Mr.. Editor. that for the
ten years preceding the present State govern
ment we have been subjected TO the vasclla-
tions resulting from anarchy and maladmin-
tration. the result Of which has been d total
disregard Of principles Of justice and equity,
and substitution of the arbitrary will Of the
Executive for that of the people, whence have
flown niquities nnumerable. leading TO an
impairment of the credit Of the State. which
Heretofore was equal to that of any common
wealth. These wrongs IL became the duty Of
tho existing government to remove, and this
could be done cffectually only by strict com
pliance with the oath taken BY the Executive,
on assuming tho functions Of his office. Ito
United States and the constitution and laws
Of this State, and II was in the fuliillment of
this sacred obligation that the board, tevery
member of which. except the President Of the
Cotton Exchange. had taken this oath as an
officer Of the State). fonnd them
selves compelled by strict adherence to the
rules Of duty. to adopt the course which was
| followed. and this was the more readily ae-
cepted as the proper method because they
| were convinced that no ono could thereby be
| injured
Now let US calmly ascertain whether the
complaints made are well founded, or rather
whether they are not conclusions reached
without having weighed all the considera-
tions bearing on the subject.
| You and Mr.. Forstall assumed that the
| in the case of the State ex rel Oscar J. For
stall vs.. the Board of Liquidation, reported
| in tho 97th Annual. p. b77. Others assert that
the matter was solved in State of Louisiana
ex rel. the Attorney General vs.. Chas. Clinton.
1 Auditor. and Antoine Dubuclct. State Treas
| urer, Frank Morey, intervenor, decided Feb
/ IA. 1915, not yet reported; and yet another
class. less charitable and sincere, hold that
the board has acted through mere caprice
without any foundation, especially with refer
enee to what Is known as levee bonds. Con-
ccding. for the purpose Of further investgu-
ton, that the eases referred to may, perhaps.
bear out the assumptions and asseverations
made to some extent. there arc in them GER
tain elements which must be well borne in
mind before we can determine whether the
board could be guided by those decisions,
considering the law by which they are gov
erned and later adjudieations of the Supreme
Court.
The case Of Mofey, inttrvenor, bears upon
act35, of 1868: that Of Forstallsupon acts 115
Of 1857 and 80. of 1870 81
The ruling in tho Morey case was rendered
on intervention IN an injunction sued out by the
attorney General against the Auditor and
! Treasurer; injunction was granted by the
lower court and yet remains in full force
holding all action on the bonds In allegiance
except the twenty bonds held by Morey for
the Supreme Court passes only on the bonds
in question and orders that they be funded
Justice WHY in his coneurring opinion, say
| ing. Without expressing any opinion as to
the balance OF the ono million hvee issue. as
they are called / agree that the twenty of
said Issue of $1,000 each, held by the interve-
nor, Frank Morey, are valid obligations Of
Tho State and should be fnnded. As the
validity Of The ifitervenors bonds are the
only ones In question In the case now pre-
| sented the decision rendered can extend to no
others" and, therefore, the. injunction
granted by the Superior District Court is yet
undissolved as to the remainder Of the issue,
and, so long as they remain in that condition,
cannot be considered or acted upon by the
other courts, and still less by the board.
1t must be observed, too, that In his plead
ings the intervenor Morey, does not open the
issue for a final decision Of the Supreme Court
as required by act II of 1878, that the scntire
million issue was legal and valid obligation
against the State of Louisiana; that the same
was issued IN steict conformity to law, and
not In violation of the constitution of this
State nor OF the United States and for valid
consideration but confined himself strictly to
the twenty bonds held by him and to his bona
tides. and 1t was upon these questions that the
Court ruled on q collateral issue and not
through a direct aetioihs M
Next in order of 1eyiewis the case of For
stall, decided previous to that Of Morey, which
offers many peculiar features which it would
be advisable for those who complain to note
carefully that they may protect the interests
confded to them. and not improperly impugn
the motives Of others.
This decision was rendered after act Ii of
1875 was promulgated and the pleadings in
the case directly cali In question the eonsti-
nationality of said act on which question