The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1878-05-15

State, exclusive of the loan to tb,
Cltlzeps Bank, is, when funded, twely,
millions and eighty nine thousand on,
hundred and three dollars aud twenty
one cents, (Sl2,0s9, lob 2l.)
If the whole of the two million.
contemplated by the act of 1873 shall
be issued, the debt will be below the
constitutional limit, unless the figures
and tabulated statements of the audit
ing officers of the government are
Incorrect.
1t is urged on the part of the respon-
dents that the question whether the
bonds loaned to the property banks
are to be considered as a part of the
Indebtedness of the State, has been
already answered adverse to the the.
DRY OF the relator, in the opinion read
by our Immediate predecessors in Sal.
ONION vs.. Graham, % Annual, 4O2
But that case was decided in 1871, be-
fore the project of funding was con
celved-before the "plan" which elm
mated these bonds FROM the debt to be
funded was formed or considered. and
fof course, before that plan was perfec-
i y +.
ed by legislative and constitutional
enactment. -
The limit then prescribed to the
debt was twenty-five millions, and
manifestly the word was then used,
and was then construed to include all
that could be included in that designa
ton, present or prospective. There
had not then been any suggestion or
scheme to separate the public debt in
to two classes, one of which was to be
funded, and the other not. The con-
stltutiOnal amendment containing that
limitation, was not preceded by any
act or legislative declaration, showing
that what was meant by the debt of
| the State was other than it's whole in
debtedness, however created or arts
ing. The inhibition then was that no
future debt should be created that
would increase the sum total beyond
twenty-five millions. The latter inhi.
bition was that no present debt should
be funded which would increase the
debt intended to be consolidated
beyond fifteen million dollars.
SO far from that decision initiating
against the position of the relator, it
goes to confirm the idea that the latter
amendment had that in view, and in
adopting as basis for calculation the
actual debt, to the exclusion of the
contingent debt, had in mind the fact
the latter had been judiciaIIy con-
strued to be a part of the general debt,
and did not provide for it to be fund
ed because it was contingent.
The funding &C came under the re-
view of the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States 10 1875, when the Court
said 1t is contended that the State
has deprived itself of the right to issue
any bonds at all, except the consolida-
ted bonds created by the funding act,
to be exchanged for outstanding debts
already existing. And this PROPOSE
ton was not mentioned approvingly,
although it was not ruled on, being
unnecessary in that case, but in the
concluding part of the same opinion,
the Court say, in reference to the dis
position to he made of the unissued
portonof consnls, sit may be objected
to,h!s view, that the bond holders of
the State may refuse to come in and
make the sacrifice required by the act;
and in such case the State ought not to
be forever preeluded from making
such otter disposition of the unissued
consolidated bonds as may be bene-
fetal to it, without being injurious to
those who have accepted such bonds.
If such state of things should arise,
after due time ana opportunity shall
have been given to test the practica.
bility of carrying out the scheme, it
will undoubtedly furnish proper
ground for modified legislation, having
due regard to the right already vested.
Board of Liquidation vs.. McComee,
2 Otto 53l.
Due time has now been given to test
the practicability of carrying ont the
scheme. -Four years have passed since
the funding bill became law. and we
now know that nearly all the holders
of the State bonds have not refused to
come in, but have consented to the
sacrifice, and sufficient time has been
given to tile holders of the residue of
the fundable bonds and warrants for
them to come 10 and share the advan
tage of the scheme. We also know
that the holders of the bonds, loaned to
the Citizens Bank will not come in,
since their bonds are not part of the
debt fundable in consols. Shall the
State be forever precluded from max
ing any other disposition of the unis-
sued consolidated bonds that may be
beneficial to it by the Legislature
There is not wanting legislation