The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-18

/ ment the exaction Of moneys from. the citizen
E fof other purposes Is not a proper exercise o
Inis power. and must therefore. be- unauthor
Again he says, page 1879:
i Taxes should only be levied for those pur
d Reass Whleh properly constitute public bur
, Now ! take the position that these leve
D0ndS were given In aid OF q private enter
prise; that there was no constitutional author
1ty In the Legislature to devote one SOLITARY
dollar OF public money to forward private in
terests OF any private Individual or collection
Of individuals BY referring back to the be
ginning of the levee system, you will fine
that the burden Of keeping up the levees wa;
, originatly thrown upon the riparian proprie
tor along the Mississippi and other rivers o.
Louisiana. He held his land by virtue OF 8
grant from either the Spanish q, French gov
and protect the adjacent lands from
overflow, so that the leyee system
II ] not fer the bet sa ct pabe
changed until 1866 In the meantime the
United States made grant of a large body
OF land within Louisiana called swamp and
oveffioWed lands. These lands were given
erect leyees along the Mississippi and Ateha-
1alaya rivers, but they were given for the
purpose OF retaining swamp lands, and for
a3 6f GIheT purpose Now look at this act by
| when these ievee bonds were issued and this
| enormous debt created, and you will find that
me purpose was the protection OF land lying
along the Mississippi, from the Arkansas
NE 10 Ine mouth Of the river. There is no
n,sslnetion made; it IS not for the purpose OF
high lands; that is, the lands already
| under cultivation along the Mississippi
| river and those not under cultivation. Now, If
| you examine the act OF Congress you will find
that this fund was given as sacred trust.
| accruing from these swamps and overfiowei
| lands, intended for the reclamation Of swamp
lands, and not for the protection Of HIGH
lands. That brings us to the very point at
Issue The get creating this debt provides
that.the bonds shall be paid out OF the pro-
ceeds Of the sale Of swamp lands. Therefore,
you see at a glance that the only provision
made for the payment OF this enormous debt
is q provision violating the trust placed In
our hands by the United States. The Legis-
lature diverted the fund, which was sacred,
and should be used only for the purpose OF
retaining the Inundated and swamp lands.
There was no other purpose for which 1t was
intended. Therefore the act creating this
debt was subject to several objections. In adj
dition to the objection made in the report
that the act creating the debt did not provide
adequate ways and means for payment is
the objection that they have put violent hands
upon fund placed In their hands as q sacred
trust, and diverted 1t In contraventiOn of the
provisions of the grant. The same can be
said Of the school fund. What was this done
for? I'll there had been q public purpose to
subServe: IL there had been governmental
purpose; ii the benefit to be derived by the
building Of levees was intended to benefit the
people Of tine State at large, there might be-
some excuse and some reason tor the preten-
sions set up in behalf Of the constitutionality
OF the act. But they were built solely and en-
ton IF lands along the Mississippi that were
not In the category Of lands for the recIa1na-
ton Of which the United States had made
this donation. Beside that, gentlemen of the
Convention, when the tax was imp osed for the
payment OF these bonds, and when an attempt
was made in certain cases pending someyears
ago before the Supreme Court and these bonds
were brought In question. discover that this
point was not raised. I discover that the
case went off on different point The point
raised there was this: That the debt was I'M
constitutional, because it had exceeded the
limit fixed by the constitution, the sum OF
twenty-five millions. 1t strikes me that that
was the only point decided IN the case to
which the gentleman from Point Coupee made
reference. Therefore he cannot set up that
case here as res J,alieat0. But take 1t for
granted that even il the Supreme Court had
SO decided, 1t is not res j,sdicata. There can
be no re-openlng Of th1squestion; it is aques-
ton Of public polfeymore than a legal question.
You are permitted to go behind every act Of
the Governor and see whether it comported
WHIP VII boi Pr r policy t3 Rs 9haeTyea toy the
The people authorized the Legislature to take
private property for public uSe, but not Tor DT1-
Yate use. nor Can It.
In a case decided by our Supreme Court,
Eleventh Annual page 33s, the court says:
The Legislature did authorize a local tax or
assessment In the old drainage district OF New
fty Of the law. II was held thai the assessment.
confined as twas to the property Of particular
locality. was legal because 1t was for the COM
mon benefit OF that locality.
In the case of Kelly vs.. Marshall, SO Penn
sylvania, the court says:
Taxes are the revenue collected from the peo-
plefor objects In which they are interested and
conducive to their welfare
Marshall, SO Penn. State. s5D decided in Nor
man VS.. Heist, Watts & Serg., III, forbid the
application of public money to private ends"
You cannot take private property for pub
use; for taxation Is nothing else but the TAX
ing OF private property for public use. It
strikes me that these references would be suf.
ficfent to show that in creating for the re-
pairing and building OF levees on the Missis-
sippi river, you were exceeding the authority
lodged by the constitution In the hands OF the
Legislature, and that any law passed for that
purpose was unconstitutional and void, and
carried with it no effect Of law, and there ID
pay that debt. That is the position which the
committee has taken In their report. They
have disregarded the act OF the Legislature OF
1874, commonly called the funding act; they
have disregarded the constitutional amend
ment of 1874, which the gentlemen on the
other side say was contract which fastened
this debt upon us beyond the hope of redress.
We have disregarded all that. We have seen
proper to base our report upon the law and
constitution OF the State, and we defy any OPP
ponent Of this report to show that the several
acts Of the Legislature by which it is claimed
that this debt was constituted, we defy them
to show that the point made by US In our re-
port Is not tenable. They have attempted to
do so; they have referred to authorities, but
you will find that this point was never raised,
and that the case went off on an entirely diff
ferent point. I ought really to ask your In
diligence and make an apology for OBTAINING
you so long, because 1t seems to me that we
are, as it were, working In q tread-mill. These
things have been gone over SO often. The
point wish to call your attention to Is this.
have not come into this Convention with
feelings Of animosity toward any class.
came here with my mind open to conviction,
as we'll In behalf Of the bondholder, as Id
behalf of the taxpayer. ] went into the ex-
animation of this matter calmly and deliber-