The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-07-06
YOU PAY YOUR MONEY AND YOU
TAKE YOUR CHOICE"

The following special from Monroe appears
in our telegraphic columns: "The decision OF
the Supreme Court was rendered this morn
ing by Justice Egan, ordering the bonds of
the Consolidated Association to be funded.
Justice Spencer read dissenting opinion, in
VIII ich Chief Justice Manning concurred."
The doctrine has been widely promulgated
throughout this State that the Supreme Court
is sacred institution which such gross and
sublunary things as newspapers have no right
to criticise. The DEMOCRAT, in the innocence
of it's nature, regarded the individuals who
compose that august tribunal as simple hui
man beings, and presumed to review their de-
cisions from popular standpoint on one or
two occasions, whereupon every stern-wheel
newspaper and every jack-leg politician in
the State sailed into us with such alacrity that
we were positively overcome and instantly
subsidized. We discovered that the Supreme
Court of Louisiana was one Of those things
which no fellow had right to talk about dis
respectfully; that public opinion regarded it
as superior to the law, and qualified to abol-
ish or set aside In certain cases even the law
against forgery. This was a sort of institu-
ton that we had never heard OF BEFORE and
reluctant as we were to accede to the new
proposition in our politics, we were forced to
do so or subject ourselves to an intolerable
amount of abusing.
Hence we hauled in our horns. We do
not propose now to renew our attacks on
the court. Oh no. We. do not propose to
have, bowling at our heels, a swarm OF
weak-headed newspapers, which, during the
last ten years, never got mad until the DEM
oCRAT pitched into the Supreme Court for
turning Tom Anderson loose, or a dozen or
two shabby law journals, who hold that the
shabbiest decisions of a court are better law
than the law itself. But how is 1t about this
late decision declaring the bonds of the Plan
ters' Consolidated Association fundable? We
are not kicking. We are not criticising the
court. We are merely askinga question. But
we do want an answer.
Not many months ago the Supreme Court
sitting in this city decided that these bonds
were fundable A few weeks ago, in the case
of the New Orleans Pacific Railroad Company
vs. the Governor, the court declared that If the
nature of the bonds of the Consolidated Asso-
citation had been made known to them and
all the facts had been presented they would
have decided differently. This was a savage
attack upon our able and conscientious At
torney General, and we doubt not he was
deeply wounded at it, though he preserved a
dignitied silence. Acting upon this dictum OF
the court, which was certainly equivalent to
reversal of its previous decision-i e., that
the bonds in controversy were fundable,
Lieut.. Gov. Wilt and majority of the Fund
ing Board refused to fund the bonds. The case
again went to the Supreme Court, andlo, that
high and holy tribunal, which, according to
the press of Louisiana, is above criticism,
again reverses its position and orders the
bonds to be funded. Now, we do not say this
is not high law, and all right. Indeed, we
shall never again be caught saving that
anything the present Supreme Court may say