The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-02-20
THE CONSOLIDATED HOND ARGUMENT
CONDENSED.

We have carefully read the briefs Of Messrs
Semmes and Campbell 1.-THE only ones furnished
MAJ In tho consolidated bond caso before Judge
Monroe, and to bring the points mt Issue before
our readers we condense the same NJ follows
I'll, semmos. ESQ, maintained these points
~ y s ae Sa s sr
eonstitutionality Of the title Of the bill or the
sued In payment Of acknowledged debts Of tho
city and the municipalities had valid consd-
GRAFTON. The obligation OF the city has been
recognize by the, various acts OF tho Legisla-
ture and OF the city government. These acts
arc anumerntad
d. The thlrty.seventh section Of the act OF 1859.
providing for the taxation of real estate and
slaves TO raise sbtoooD for tho payment OF the In
forest aud curtailment Of the. principal of these
holders and tho city and State which cannot be
revoked or impaired by subsequent Legislation
or judicial decision.
The case OF the city Of Quincy. Wallace 6ab,
fully explains tho rotations and obligations of
these parties. II says the State and the corpo-
ration IN such cases are equally bound: the
power given becomes u trust which the donor
cannot annul and which the donee IL bound to
execute.
.. The consitutlenality of the thirty seventh
section OF tho act OF 1852.
II Is attacked on the ground Of tho dscrmi-
nation between tho real and the personal prop
erty. the former with slaves being alone taxable
to pny tho amount required for the consolida-
Tho constitutions OF 1915 and 1859 arc identical
III.
Tho consolidated bonds were issued under
the constitution Of 1919 and before that OF 1862
went into operation.
The important aud controlling question ia
what Interpretation was put by our courts
upon the contract with the consolidated bond
holders on the application Of tho constitutional
provisions ns they then stood.
The Duncan case "a A.. 1871 supplies this In
formation. In that case Chief Justice Eustis
decides that the constitutional provision In re-
iatton TO uniformity and equality applies by its
very terms 70 state and not to municipal taxa
ton. This was In 1877. This decision was re-
iterated down to 1850. in the case of Gillespie. 3
When the constitution Of 1859 adopted into
that instrument rs article 1877, article l2s of the
constitution Of lsa5. it adopted the construc-
ton Of the Supreme Court OF the article In the
constitution OF 1915.
division Of the judges, undertook to interpret
the constitutional provision Of article lob Of the
constitution rs applicable to local or municipal
taxation. This decision was rendered in the
Justices slideil and Campbell dis dssen Sine
This decision undertook to determine that
taxation on real estate only for local improve s
ments. or taxation on adjacent real estate to pay
for local improvements. was not uniform, and
appears To conflict with the decision In the
duncan case. which. however. was the only
Gaze where u municipal ordinance imposing u
special tax TO raise general revenue on one
species of property was cal! led In question.
The two cases in Q Annual were subsequently,
overruled In IL and Ia Annual.
Tue rule in Duncan's case decided In 1s47
was practically In force. and the articles OF the
constitution of 1s4s and 1852 were considered by
all departments Of the government as, inap
plicable TO municipal taxation until 1854.
TWAS during this period that the consolidated
bonds were issued. The holders are entitled
therefore, to have these bonds enforced as this
consolidation required. In the GeIpeke case,
Wallace. 200. bonds issued by the city of Du-
buque. which were once declared valid by the
Supreme Court. could not be invalidated by q
subsequent decision Of that court that such
bonds were unconstitutional. In that ease the
Supreme Court of the United States says:
However we may regard the late case in Iowa
as affecting, the future it can have no effect on
the past. The sound and true view is that If
the contract when made was valid by the
laws OF the State. as then expounded
by all departments of the government
and administered in Its courts Of justice. its
validity and obligation cannot be impaired by
any subsequent action of legislation. or dee-
sion of Its court altering the construction of
the law. The same principle applies where
there Is change of judicial decision as to the
constitutional power OF the Legislature to, enact
Il law To this rule thus enlarged we adhere.
It is the law of this court 1t rests upon the
plainest principles OF justice. To hold other
wise would be as unjust as to hold that rights
acquired under statute may b. lost by lis re-
y al
This doctrine was affirmed In the Iowa case
Wallace. 2oi where the supreme Court OF the
United States says: In that case" referring