The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-05-09
THE RAILROAD CASE.
susTuCE ECAN's DISSENTING OPIN-
TON, CONQUERED IN by JUS
TICE lie RLANC.

rific Railway Company vs. Francis L. Mich
oils. Governor, ct als-However important
the interests to be advanced by the decree In
this case, as manifested by the Legislative ac-
tion, am unable to agree with the concur
sions arrived at by q majority of the court.
In my opinion the fact that tho property
bank bonds are secured collaterally to their
full amount does not make them any less
part OF the debt of the State, nor their obli
cation upon the State any less binding
It may be that those securities may prove
ample for their redemption, or they may not.
In this day of wonderful reduction Of values,
whereby fortunes heretofore deemed large
disappear as II by magic and contrary to all
reasonable human calculation, we are daily
taught the instability of all securities. In
what situation, let me ask, will the State be
placed If to-day we authorize and decree the
issuance OF two millions OF new bonds Or the
State and tomorrow, on % few years hence,
she Ia called to redeem her solemn mncondi-
tional promises to pay tho property bank
bonds: what barrier and what defense is 70
be interposed Surely not the existence OF
these new obligations Of the state when
swell its liabilities beyond the constitutional
limit: and Ii not. then the practical conse
silences Of the violation Of ite contract and OF
the constitutional amendment will have to be
met by the State amid many einbarrasSmcnts.
Should contest arise between the holders OF
the consolidated bonds and those of this new
Issue. notwithstanding the present Decree
what must be its inevitable result?
But however much these considerations
might induce us to pause at the possibility of
the State and the holders of its obligations
being placed In such embarrassing position,
this fs not the question now. The sole ques-
fiOu Ia whether the contemplated issue in
favor Of the relator will be In excess of the
limit placed upon the State debt by the CON
Stitltional amendment OF 1874.
In my opinion, the reasoning of the court
and It's decision In the case of the State ok rel.
Solomon II Simpson vs. Graham, Auditor %
An, page 402 Is as applicable to-day as when
it was rendered as to chm constitutes '.the
State debt" and is unaffected by the fact that
the later amendment has reduced the limit of
that debt below that then existing. 1t was
there held that the property bank bonds con-
atituted and must be counted and considered
MS part of the debt Of which they have all the
characteristics, form and obligations.
The opinion and decree of the present
bench in the case of LeSassier Il Binder vs..
the Board of Liquidation is in accordance
with the same view. That suit was brought
under the provisions of the funding bill upon
some OF these very property bank bonds, and
by our decree we declared them to be debts Of
the State, possessed of all the qualities and
characteristics which eRtitle them to be
funded and 1t was not even attempted to be
urged as q defense that they were not funda-
Bile, for the reasons now urged. In point Of
fact we know from current history that the
same view Is taken by the Funding Board it.
self since the last quoted decision.
III so, then what becomes of the argument
derived from the amount of consois provided
for by the funding bill, and the amount of the
State debt as estimated at the. time of its
adoptionP Whatever the errors In those esti-
mates the terms of the amendment were
made no less absolute and the interests of
those dealing with the State cannot be affected
by such error In the motive for the self
imposed curb on Its power to incur debts.
III argument Is to be drawn from that source
~N41 4S.Nxxa 4Ena I'm tyrHE x,f
lature and the circumstances which gave
birth to and attended the Legislation on this
Atibie,st why should we shut our eyes to the
historic a1id important fact that IN that I'M
happy period In the history Of the State
which originated the necessity and led TO me
adoption Of the funding scheme, many ana
large issues Of bonds were made which were
known to be outstanding and included in the
estimates Of the amount OF the State debt,
which were more than suspected OF having
been fraudulently or illegally Issued, and
many Of which were contested by the
Attorney General and Auditor, and
that large classes and amounts OF bonds
were In the opinion Of the Legislature itself,
as declared In the supplemental funding bill,
Droscribed and prohibited from being funded
without prior judicial inquiry and sitting Of
their character and basis?
From these facts 1t is evident that the Leg
islature expected and had good reason to ex-
pect, that enough of what was estimated as
jected on such judicial inquiry to reduce It,
when funded, within the fifteen million limit
or even below 1t; but which, possessing on
their face all the characteristics of obligations
of the State, and being supported by the form
of legislation, are and must continue to be in
cluded in all estimates of State liabilities UNI
til the contrary is decided.
Again. what was the funding bill but a new
contract rendered by the State TO its creditors,
which they might or might not accept for
reasons satisfactory to themselves; as, for
instance, In the case of the holders of the
property bank bonds, because they. might
consider the existing security sufficient for
their ultimate redemption to the full amount!
That this was a reasonable and probable
view OF the matter, Is made more manifest by
the fact that up to this time after the offer
and opportunity has remained open for seve-
raj years less than twelve millions of the
consolidated bonds have been applied for or
issued.
This, then, disposes of the argument drawn
from the relative inequality of the estimated
State debt with the addition of the proper
ty bank bonds and the amount of consolidated
. bonds provided for. But aside from the fore
going considerations the language Of the
constitutional amendment, placing limit
upon the amount of the State debt sis plain
and unambiguous, and its letter cannot be
disregarded under the preteXt OF pursuing
It's spirit" G. c.. art. ID.
/ cannot, therefore, assent to the force OF
the arguments arrayed in the opinion of the
majority Of the court, drawn from their view
of what was the legislative intention in pro-
posing or that of the people in adopting, the
constitutional amendment.
In point of fact, however, 1t IS well known
that the relative amount Of debt and new
issue Of bonds provided for was little known
or considered by the people at large in adopt
ing the amendment and that they We're read
lily inclined to place check, in the form OF {
constitutional amendment upon the spolia
tions to which, under the forms of law, they
had been Of late SO freely subjected. The!
accepted the amendment according to it.
plain letter and the evident meaning of it;
language. Is it, then surprising if the large
class of foreign and nonresident holders o
the State bonds have accepted or should in
terpret the funding bill and the constitutions
amendment to mean what it says-that "th'
whole State debt should not be increased
beyond fifteen millions before the time tixet
in the amendment? This view alone seems t