The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-05-07

of the funding act This is a summary OF the
State debt on the first day Of the present year ~
exclusive OF the bonds styled not 1unuape' as
compiled by the present Auditor:
Consolidated debt. January |. 1878 s11 .27o7so c.
Outstandi ing old bonds. when funded 392,2so U,
W tss.naad e'.,'................. 1922 sc
And this Ia the total amount Of consols, after
every bond and warrant has been funded. the
funding Of which WIS contemplated under the
theory we have adopted.
But It Ia said one OF the holders Of the bonds
loaned to the Consolidated Planters Associa-
zion has not acted on this theory, and we have
Sassier Il Binder have obtained decree Az
thorizing the funding at sixty cents on the
dollar of three thousand dollars of those bond >
nSn-fundability under the view of the funding
act presented here. II there had been; and It had
cided til t case differently But suppose all the
holders of those bonds should apply to have
them funded. The whole amount OF them thus
loaned and outstanding, including those IN the
LeSaaster case. is s5o630o. Exchange those f9r
consois at the funding rate. and the total debt
zens Bank, il, when funded, si2osa 100 ~.
If the whole Of the two millions contemplated
by the act of 1873 shall be issued the debt VIII De
below the constitutional limit. unless the ilg-
ures and tabulated statements Of tho auditing
officers of the government arc incorrect
Il l. urged upon the part Of the resPonuedn g.
that the question whether the bOnds loaned I'd
the property banks are to be considered as
part or the Indebtedness OF the state has been
ALREADY a. S IL Sne
predecessors in Solomon vs.: Graham, ~ An
nual 400 But that case was decided IN 1871 pc
fore the project of funding was concelved-be-
fore tbe plan which eliminated these bonds
from the debt TO be funded was formed or con
sidored. and of course before that plan was per
fected BY legislation and constitutional amend
The limit then prescribed to the debt was
Il ~. iltrf tn cord
was there used and was then construed 20 IN
clude all that could ba included in that designa-
tion, present or prospective. There had not then
heen any suggestion or scheme to separate the
public debt into two classes, one OF which was
to be funded and the other not. The, .constitu-
fionaj amendment containing that limitation
was not preceded by any act or Legislative dec
laration, showing that what was meant by the
debt Of the State was other than its whole indebt-
edness however created or arising. The lnhl-
bition then wits that no future debt should be
created that would increase the sum total
beyond Twenty-Five millions The later inhib,
which would increase the debt intended to be
consolidated beyond fifteen millions.
far h a. decision + g e agapa
the idea that the later amendment had that in
view, and in adopting, as a basis for calcula-
contingent debt. had In mind the fact that the
latter had been ludicially construed to be a part
Of the general debt and did not provide for 1T
to be funded. because 1t was contingent.
The funding act came under the review OF the
Supreme Court Of the United States IN 1879 81
State has deprived itself of the right to issue
any bonds at all except the consolidated bonds
created by the funding act to be exchanged
for outstanding debts already existing, and
this proposition was not mentioned approvingy
although 1t was not ruled On being unneces-
sary In that ease; but in the concluding part OF
the same opinion the court says. In reference
to the disposition 70 be made of the issued por-
tion of consols: II may DO objected to this
view, that the bondholders Of the State may re-,
f,a II, and ulfnt ia
by the act, and in such case the state ought
not to be forever precluded from making such
other disposition OF ne mnissuei Correspondence
injuriout to those who have accepted such
bonds. II such a state OF things should arise,
after due time and opportunity shall have been
given to test the practcability OF carrying out
the scheme 1t will undoubtedly furnish proper
grounds for modified legislation having due
regard to the rights already vested. Board OF
Liquidation vs. McUomb, Otto ISL.
Due time has been given to test the practfca-
have passed since the funding bill became
law, and we now know that nearly nil the
cnYnn in. hut have consented TO the sacrifice and
sufficient time has been given to the holders of
fine residue of the fundahle bonds and warrants
orthem to como in and share the advantages 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
proven precluded from making any other dis
position of the unissued consolidated bonds
that NAV be deemed beneficial to 1t by the Leg
islature?
There Ia not wanting legislation evincing an
animus to prevent any part of the fundable
debt, which shall remain unchanged for consols.
from being redeemed or the interest upon it
mid II would be difficult to devise an enact
nent more stringent or more comprehensive
than that which deprives any officer of the
State of the power to ASSESS collect or enforce
the payment Of any tax for the payment Of any
of the bonds or the interest thereon, which
were contaminated to be funded by the act of
Is74-whisb prohibited to all courts and Judges
or any tribunals. to entertain or take iurisdic-
tax-wbich declared that such tax shall not be
recorded by any officer so as to operate n lien
and If recorded that 1t should not operate a
iien-whieh abrogaed all penalties for the nom
payment Of Such tax, and declared that the
bonds of the tax collectors should not cover
such tax and ii they collected it, neither them
selves nor their sureties should be liable to pay
ii to any person And In the same act to ensure