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

ed from the provisions Of these ,copious
and all embracing prohibitions. Acts
1874, page 81.
We have before said that controver-
sy of the policy OF impolicy, to good or
bad faith of the funding act is closed,
because of the numerous aud grave
complications that wonld arise upon
and from the opening of that question.
Lord Cecil VS.. Board Of Liquidation
an:e 35. We regard the faith of the
State as irrevocably pledged to the
pay ment of her consolidated bonds is.
sued under the authority of that act
and to the payment of snch other
bonds as may be issued under the
sanction of the decree we shall make
herein.
The contract with the holder of the
bonds is one which, in the language of
the constitutional amendment, the
State can by no means aud in Eowise
impair. This utteranee fortified by
judicial sanction, contains the double
assurance to the bopdholders that
their securities shall not be impaired
or imperilled, aud to the taxpayers,
that their burtheDs shall not be aug
mented beyond the constitutional
limit. Until the actual debt of the
State be reached the limit of $4,000, =
600, exclusive of the contingent liabil
tiles which were not embraced within
the funding act and the constitutional
amendment, it is competent for the
Legislature to provide for the issuing
of bonds as loan to such enterprises
as fall within it's constitutional power,
provided other requirements are COM
piled with, and we shall now proceed
to tile inquiry whether these require
ments have been complied with in the
present instance. IA
Has the Legislature complied with
the constitutional requirement OF pro-
viding in the law crerting this debt
adequate ways and means for the pay
ment of the current interest and of the
principal when it shall have become
duet The relator is required by the
act to deposit its own first mortgage
bonds with the Auditor, and to pledge
them to the State for the guarantee Of
the payment of the State bonds which
shall be issued, to an amount exceed.
ing by one.fourth the amount of the
State bonds delivered by the company.
The whole amount OF bonds to be is
sued by the company is restricted to
five millions, one half of which will
be then pledged for the. redemption of
the State bonds, in the event the full
issue of the latter authorized by the
act is made, and the restriction is
evidently made to prevent tile weak
ening the security which the State has
required for her protection. Fifty
thousand dollars of the State bonds
are to be extinguished annually By the
company; commencing Ave years af-
ter the completion of it's line to
Shreveport, and this annual rate of
extinsuishmeut is to continue until the
near approach OF the maturity of the
State bonds, when they are to be ex-
tinguished in such annual proportion
lis shall ensure the payment and can
collation. of the whole of them by their
maturity.
1t may be that these salutary pre-
cautions will not completely insure
the object for which they were made.
Human affairs depend upon too many
contingencies to enable the wisest in
dividual or the most prudent public
body to convert the scheme, which is
practically worked out in the future,
and provide with unerriug certainty
for the attainment of specific results.
The Legislature has provided the ade-
quate means in the constitutional
sense.
The third and last objection to the
constitutionality of the act is that the
State has not the right to assume or
create debt which must eventually
be met by the use of her taxing power
in aid of an enterprise of this kind.
The argument is that this enterprise
is private, as contradistiuguisiIed from
public, and hence that the public
money cannot be rightfully appropria-
ted to its aid. The discussion of this
question was at one time practically
useful as we'll as Theoretically interest
ing. Nearly all the States, if not quite
all, have been at one time or another
agitated by this controversy,
and when the arena of conflict was
transferred from the hastings to the
courts, each side found ample grounds
TO fortify it in its opinions. There
was rarely an unanimous court in pro-
bouncing a Judgment for or against
The power, and opinions are yet divi-
led between the disputants as to what
should have been the judgment pro-
bounced. The battle is over, it has
been fought and has been lost by those