The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-15

whether
simr,Iv donations to the roads. Now, Just to
illustrate this suppose that at the time the
State subscribed FOR such stock that On fndi-
yidual had also taken stock In the same enter
rrise. and suppose that that individual had
wanted to borrow money on the faith OF 1t, L.
ii believed, or can 1t be believed, that any cap
italist, or broker, or business man In the State
would have loaned him the amount Of the
stock on simple pledge Of the, the s aa,,,d
have been effected that the security would
have been deemed utterly Inadequate. Gan
the people expect less discretion OF their ser
wants when they de "a mncn tnsy
tior, 1t must not be forgotten, formed part
and parcel Of the contracts under which these
debts were created. 1t formed on essential
DDu iiS n vas a. important limitation
Legislature, which Sad experience has
taught u.s. and especially Of recent years how
greatly liable II Is to be abused. For anstance
hold.in my hand 9 statement drawn from
official records to show TO what oppression
aae q t tRis dangerous power. W. dad Chat il
1867 the tax amounted TO 3a mills, 10 1868 to
as u 1s y s9 l. ni ms Y ra as1 u z
ton only proportfonea to the enormous and
growing amount Of the reported public debt
Of those years, which debt, according
s t. hs asatSss s ad %9 e Of ss
liabilities to the sum Of $5O,5O0 900. This
simple statement will demonstrate how essen
tial to the protection Of the rights Of the
people OF the State was the observance Of the
referred, and how just and reasonable It Is to
conclude that the nOn-Observance OF these re-
quirements were sufficient to render all
debts thus created and bonds Issued
null and void, and not binding upon the
peOpIe of the State. Again the Legislature,
by net Of 1867, issued bonds In MD Of the
levees, or SO pretended to, to the amount Of
vided Is the acts creating the debt was q
pledge of the proceeds OF the sale OF swamp
lands belonging to the State. 1t needs no ar
gument to show that the Legislature must
have known ct that time that this pretended
security amounted to nothing. 1t Is . we'll
known fact that # these lands were and are
worthless, and likely to remain 30 for the
next century, that they could not then
or now be given away. Hence we see that In
the creation Of this vast debt the constitu-
and absolutely disregarded, 30 the majority
OF the committee conclude, and cannot see
that this Convention can come to R*diGerent
conclusion It T. for me to refer
basis. This has been done by other gentle
men who have addressed the Convention, and
who have also shown how and in what manner
the vast sums derived from the sale OF these
from the purposes for which the bonds pur-
port To have been issued. Nor are judicial
authorities wanting to establish the correct
ness Of my conclusions.
The act, No. 2e3 Of the act OF 1856, contained
similar provision as that embraced In article
reference to debts created by parishes,
ions ions Now, It must be understood
that the Legislature has delegated to these
w IN
necessary for the administration Of their local
governments, and an obligation entered into
by any such corporations In disregard OF the
provision or limitation referred to requiring
the ei payment Il debt 1t tie met i created
would be null and void, II my position Is cor.
the State would be void IL Issued without the
observance Of the constitutional requirement.
cided ID the case Of Wilson against the city
Of Shreveport. In this decision they say
t'Those who contract with. municipal oorpo-
rations know that these bodies act validly
by the special laws by which they are Gre
Is bound to see that the Contract
or obligations Of which he claims the benefit,
e Pewas wnf lie et & s o
legation Is In the shape Of q negotiable instru-
ment, or that 1t was acquired Id good faith
and for 9 valuable consideration before matu-
Tty In No fho manner snlarges a the
i my additional force 80 Or 4 validity
to Its unauthorized acts. The ordinance I'M
der which these bonds were issued made, no
such provision for the payment Of principal
ne second section q the ordinance
set apart $4,000 year from the revenues
derived from the wharf as q sinking fund, but
the mayor and trustees, within week
q a ~ onansss an sPea Wt 5ns sse0e
$1,000 out Of the taxes Of each year
as 9 sinking fund. The statement In the
bon t sha ns c for the athfa
taxation of real estate and personal property.
Is not more obligatory than the promise to
pay, and II could be dlsregarded with equal
facility anG impunity. What the law means
p psymsn p ry s and inees f
taken care to explain in very simple terms.
It shows that the Legislature III
tended a tax, sufficient to pay the
the ordinance Which created the debt. Thse
bonds sued on were issued without legal war
rant Or authority; they were issued In 90 a.
tempt and IN fiagrant violation OF prohibit
tory law; they are not g, obligations which can
solute utilities. We might quote other decl-
sions to the same effect, but ills unnecessary,
In no case where this issue was madein regard
to the validity Ola bond, whether issued by
decided diffently.
1t is, however, contended that these bonds
having been funded under the provisions Of
hefunding act passed 10 1874, cannot now be
disputed. IL these bonds were absolutely null
and void at the time they were issued, as we
have shown, no act Of that Legislature or the
Funding Board created under that act could
give them validity 1t would simply be one
set OF public servants attempting to create q
debt In contraventiOn Of the constitutional
requirement and another set attempting to
ratify the same II they were, and in the
beginning no such attempt ct ratification
could impart to them any validity. And let
US inquire for moment into the powers
vested in this funding board. whose acts and
proceedings are pretended to be vested with
all the authority to which judgments OF the
that they should fund only the valid obliga-
tions OF the State, and 1t declared 1t crime
and subjected them to punishment II they
laxl. NAt ~ AZ