The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-17

one hand. that the acts under which the plain
tfffs claimed we're unconstitutional IN that they
increased the State debt beyond s26. Geo. 900.
Upon the par, OF the realtors t was c9ateaded
that the contract set up fmp2-ed no DEBT upon
ment. viii Is now before the court. said;
AS we have said before there Is no obliga-
to the 81 aI q Re :"
are no obligations issued in its favor by the
State. The State is free from all Indebtedness
obligations toward it. ii it was debt it could
then 1t is not debt.
80. am unable to see,' Gays the Judge ire
ferring to judge Q,to) in what the levying
Of this tax could BIZ considered as creating
I've are indeed Of the same opinion, and be-
lieve with the court, that the Legislature alone.
il they were to consider that they had made an
IMPROPER levy OF taxes. could reduce them I'm
clgsively with that body
The position thus taken by The REALTORS in
sustained by the decision OF the supreme
Court. See 25 Annual Reports, D. 4o3. in the
1. I'VE do not sec In what manner the -
amendment Of the constitution OF the State.
which limits the State debt TO s25 100000, is
violated by the law creating the Levee Company.
The State has created no deb In their favor 1t
has assumed no responsibility on their &C
count. 1t does not pay or orjer to be paid any
The State Incorporated the company. giving it
,ettain rights and privileges. and imposing
he Wy burdens upon it ut the same timas 1t
contracted with the company In regard TO
work of great public utility. To secure the
company they impo sed general tax upon all
the properly Of the STAT AID made t IT the dgtg
dnpost the sums collected In the treasury. but
it provided t the same time that the moneys
so ected should be placed to the credit i OF
certain fund to be- drawn upon by the officers
of the company. But this does not creHte o
II bility on the art of the State. The State
aos' no m Sey Rs rea
any sum contracted for by ttfe Levee Com
Dany."
to follow out the reasoning which leads TO the
tsst T. tae sais thas aselasd H., II w6i ;
inal act of incorporation sum OF money from
the state treasury, the. issue was distinctly
raised that the money claimed was debt Gre
tiucilv decided that the contract sued on be.
tween the l. wee Company and the State created
no debt as against he latter,
1t Is true that 1t does not appear OF record
except from the printed argument filed In the
supreme Court (which has been duoted). that
the plaintiffs ns admitted that their eontsact Gre
o. ar that they q limited that the State debt at
the time of the creation OF that contract ex-
tpional imitation. it necessarily Follows either
that the contract created no debt. or that 1t was
unconstitutional, nu and void.
The Supreme Court. as we hava seen, held
that the con- r,.ct created no debt the same tri-
bunal will affirm or reverse that decision. This
court doe not tn INK 1t becom iug to meddle with
that the acts No. - of 1873 and No IS OF 1874
must be governed by the same construction.
The question then is what are the plaintiffs
claiming, and what have they the right to claim
under act No. 1879 Of 1877
Considering, the last query first. It appears
per that act th,t the company i anthorized--
A ut VT oil ,f
To bring suit against the State Of Louisiana
for any cause OF action 1t may have against the
Sta growing out Of the construction. main
tenance OF. repairs. of any leyees constructed
maintained or repaired by said company; said
suit to BE- instituted in any court" ETC
SEC BE be- smasea ETC., That moth
ii the defen-es of the State to the suit herein
authorized to be Instituted. it being the true
and adjsdcaten er under ID existing laws The
entire subject matter Of the controversy be-
tween the State of Louisiana and the Louisia
tract made under the provisions OF act No. 4 OF
1871 and act No. 43 OF 1873. and all acts amenda-
tory, thereto: and nothing, moreover. herein
said Levee Company for the purposes OF said
suit except any figbts n claimed BY them under
q 2 as
null and void aud no claim in favor OF said
com pany shall be considered as flowing from
said act or any certificates presented there
uBdsr."
Section provides that In the event OF judg
ment against the State for as much $685.
such Judgment shall be satisfied bv consolid.
ateh bonds. and any amount In excess OF thai
sum. except such rs may become due for work
paid out OF the proceeds Of tits fevee tax here
tofore assessed. which is set apart for that pur,
pose.
Be elton provides that the tax thus set apar
shall be collsctei anil paid over to the company
under existing laws in ayment OF any DEBT
company, at the rate OF sixty cents ON the dol
Sec ion 8 povides that pending the suit au,
third of ths tax Of 1877 shall be paid over TO the
company under existing laws in extinguish-
ment OF any amount finally adjudged to be due
the company at the rates al, ,resaid.
Section 9. that one. third of the tax Of 1877 or &C
much rs may be necessary. is appropriated te
he payment Of anv amount which may finally
anticipation OF that tax
1t will be seen hat this act merelygives to the
plaintiffs the right to sue. upon the laws and
upon the con ract, II there Is one, as they stand
and valves no defense which the State might
have.
Under the decision which has been quoted. II
appears that the State has not to pay for any
work done by the Levee Company, but has sim
. to collect a tax imposed for that purpose
Its and trn It to the
state no obligation save that of turning over
the tax collected. and. until 1t ia shown thai
HoIne lax lbs Deen COlloCtoQ WnCn the STATE Ia1lE
to turn over. there Is no obligation to be In
forced.
As we have seen. act 139 OF 1877 provides for
he payment to the plaintiffs of ali taxes col.
ected under existing laws. save a portion Of the
tax OF 1877 colleclible in 1879 and 1t Is fair tc
presume that the officers OF the State are dis
charging this duty.
There is no allegation in plaintiffs petition
to the contrary. There Is no allegation that the
State has ever collected dollar Of the tax i'm
posed under the various laws relating to the
Levee Company or that. having collected such
tax, has withheld 1t from tn It Company.
The allegations Of the petition are that the
State owes them over s17OO 900. The Supreme
Court have decided hat the State does not ".
The report of the experts goes to show the
amount due for work done under the allega-
ti0ns Of the petition.
The court is of opinion that whether the
plaintiffs be estopped by the decision referred
70 from alleging and showing debt against
the state or not. that decision must. at ali
events govern the present one as to The ques-
ion hara al hoy n