The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-17
ti5. oOo 900 are authorized. We have 1 margin Ct
% 0Oo. 900 to work on In this case.

margin 1911 10 WORK On. 70 ala IN this great puD.
lie enterprise. so important to every interest OF
the State OF louisiana
1t becomes necessary In determining the
'rue meaning and intent Of he funding oct Of
1874 and the constitutional amendment adopted
In connection Herewith, and to do this We must
poses thereof. the end to. be attained and the
evil to b. remedied. and this done we find that
the whole matter resolves Itself into mathe-
State debt. absolute and contingent. amounted
to about $50 900 900: the proposit on was TO fund
the debt in copsos at aixty cents on the dollar
the limit to the issue OF conso's was placed at
tIs. 900 900. thus leading to a mathematical alb
sardty, IL the contingent debt. viz; the Citizens
dsb TRs shows Clearly that the e 1 Of
1874 had no reference to those bonds. and that
the Legislatqre did not consider them in the
reference to the s25 900 remaining after their
exclusion. from consideration. Even of these
Kellogg then announced his Intention to dis
subsequently. which action has been confirmed
by this court with regard to some s3,5oo.ooo Of
Section 10 Of the funding act clearly means by
the debt hereby au, horized" the indebtedness
OF the State as redueed to consols. s15. 900, 900
being authorized but. owing to the invalidity
OF certain of the old bonds. only s12 coo 900 have
been required for the extinguishment Of the old
debt. and
THE LIMIT HAS NOT BEEN REACHED.
As regards the Citizens Bank bonds, this
nsr tss to E o5s
secured creditors we're not asked to compound.
had no voice In accepting or rejecting the COM
affected thereby. The funding act in like man
ner extended no invitation to, the Citizens
Bank bondnolders to exchange those bonds for
to the objection based upon article Ill of the
constitution. providing that adequate means Of
payment shall be provided for any debt created
and not subject to Judicial inquiry, except in
case Of palpable abuse OF the Legislative power.
SO in the case of the Crosse Tets, Railroad; the
bonds issued tn them by the State were only
last month declared valid by this court though
the only provision for their payment was the
stock subscribed for by the State.
As to the third and last objection, railroad en-
terprises have always been considered public
ENTERPRISES by both legi .lative and judicial au-
thorities. On this point we would refer to Dill
view. vol. 2, .. 244.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OGDEN.
for the respondent. said that the great difficulty
in the way OF the issue of these. bonds was the
sats debt When the eei4ston o Of ,s73 w sas
had it did n. appear that the State debt would
fall below SIS 100000: 1t never has len below
rsssd to hs whos de h
the general Specification of the word debt It
is argued that this legislation was virtual re-
represented by the consos issued. but this ap
recognition Of the whole debt. and the pro-
consos While no Provision was made I? for the the
payment of interest on the other bonds. was
merely intended rs an inducement to the hold
ers OF those bonds to fund them In consols.
ALL THE BONDS ARE DEBTS
of the State until decided invalid by the courts
until the courts say that they are not fundabe
no one can 80 declare them.
The IT BY for the
rnn M hn fntn md hat hnn v~Ot hoo,
d me here, but it is enacted that the party with
whom the State contracts shall make such pro-
vision. The provision for payment contem.
resources OF the State by it's own powers OF tax.
alton: and the State cannot rely upon broken
reed here and broken reed there. Then this
Ia "a
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.
By Which the State is drecs beneed
and the profits from which serve to replen.
81 prvats corp nH alto UndeS
any other construction As property can,
on the same principle. be taken from him and
by some great public interest is subserved.
though the benefit Is only IN directly conferred
Moreover. in order to leealize the issue Of these
must remain In the State and not be given up to
the railway pany., The use must remain in
the public. IN regard to the decisions In other
has 8. ated that they were in nearly every in
stance rendered by divided courts. showing
hat 1t WAS by no means settled principle that
such grants were just. correct and legal exer-
else Of Legislative power.
nc. MILLER. ESQ.,
FOR the relator, said:
Il the case i to stand only upon rigid inter
Ho O. s Ct as BE-
viewed In the light of the whole OF the
amendment and of the fund
Ing act. The legislation of 1874 referred to aud
1palt wi aPtnal DrpSpnt pf ha fpfa
for the payment Of interest ON which the STATE
was unable to make provision, and not to the
he property banks for which the State was Sc
cured. and which were held by persons who did
not look to the ate for payment. but to the
outstanding debt Of the State. exclusive of the !
property bank bonds. SIS. 100000 was regarded |
az sufficient to wipe out the debt referred to.
nave been. If they were ting with reference |
% the property bank bonds In addition to the |
I25 oo.Ooo of other bonds, when they proposed |
requiring S1s 00O. OOO) and fixed the maximum |
amount of consols which might be issued In ex-
inguishment thereof at $l5.0oo.00o.
THE ACT PROVIDES
or the reduction Of the debt, to $4,000; 900.
when they would make the whole debt ESQ. 900 600,
md when the rate at which the debt was to be
We must ' ooncude the s that the debt
'ontem plated was that which. scaled at the rattle
ixed bv the act. would be wiped out by the issue
If Sic. 900 900 Of consols. and we ask for a con-
'truction in consonance with the evident mean
ng Of the act
It is mistake to argue that the property
bank bonds. were included in the sos, 900 900 Of
ponds intended to be funded in consols, for |
here were s25 100000 Of debt without those |
ponds, and they, therefore, could not have been |
Intended to be included.
The question. of TIE exercise of the taxing
power in granting aid to public enter prises Of
his char acter was raised as early as 1854 in the
nj IA nj fu I'd nn6 hA h nj
exercise Of power was sustained by the Supreme
Court. The words
ADEQUATE PROVISION"
10 not mean that thetaxing power must be called
INTO play. The provision in this case Is that the |
company makes deposit of 1875 per cent of fl st |
mortgage bonds before any state bonds are to
30 issued. 1t Is not for court Of justice to re-
wise every legislative act and determine whether |
he Legislatn has properly exercised It's legis-
alive discretion.
Article Ill Of the constitution does not mean
10 restrict the provision for the payment of |
hese bonds to fund raised by State taxation.
zisinn shall be made and this has bean done In |