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

government, or to Messrs. Phelps and Bald
win, members Of the Kellogg. board. who
mad career. Mr. President, these two boards
were conceived In Gin and brought forth ~
iniduity. The one was designed to rob the
people Of their liberties; the other 81 their
property. But tor the fact that the Ameri,
can citizen holds hts liberty dearer than oil
the transcendent doings Of the Funding
Board far eclipsed the manipuatiOns 81 tile
Returning Board. The Funding Board was
a willy, scheme, having Tor &. Its .I pnff-
which was then variously estimated from
forty to fifty millions. 1t ut first recon
mended itself to the favorable consideration
OF some OF our people. And II it, provisions
had been righttully executed ~ would nave
deserved well Of us. The net provides for
exchanging new consolidated bonds at sixty
cents on the dollar for all legal outstanding
bonds and warrants. Section three OF the act
provides penalty for the funding OF any
illegal bond or warrant. Section nine Of the
act provides that the Auditor. who was d
member of the board, should make an annual
report giving detailed account of the pro
ceedings Of the board. This act was ap-
proved On July a, 1874. On the same
proposing constitutional amendment
to the people. The provisions Of this
amendment are that the issuance of the
new consolidated bonds should form valid
contract between the people and the bond
holders which the. State should not impair
Il also provides that the courts should not
enjoin the collection Of the bonds or the col
lection OF the tax to pay the same, and levied
q tax Of five and q half mills to pay the inter-
est On the same, and that no legislation, Or
assessment or collection st the tax or pay
ment from the treasury. What was the pur-
pose VI this constitutional amendment?
First, to provide the ways and means, by
levying q tax, to pay an illegal debt because
10 ways q means Ter payment had been pro
vided Ia the acts originally creating the
debts; secondly, to make the decision
Of the Funding Board as TO the f.
sst Ryra IT xadt sypa Conclusive CO any b9nd
and that the consolidated bonds issued BY
this board no court or other tribunal could
question their validity or enjoin the payment
Of the bonds. While the Returning Board
counting Id fraudulent governments not
elected, these fraudulent governments were
issuing Illegal and invalid bonds or warrants,
which the Funding Board was transforming
into bonds which, under the amendment, were
valid contract and beyond the right or
OF validity Of the same Ia any tribunal what
ever, and depriving the people OF the right III
access to the courts to resist the collection of
the tax. The Returning Board and its fraudu-
A1lb E0NGIuIuHuL pIOuucGu b HARVEST Oh
raw material, which the Funding Board
speedily transformed into manufactured
bonds.
Now, Mr.. President, do the people Of this
State know what that Funding Board dld2
mean to say that we are not able to ascertain
what was the origin or source Of any one of
these consolidated bonds. And Why2 Be
cause the board kept no record OF Its proceed
ings, or at least made no annual report as
provided BY the act Of the Legislature Great
r1r
tutional amendment was adopted at the No
vember election Of 1874, and the Nichols gov
eminent came into power In January, 1877, so
the Funding Board under thesKellogg admin
tstration were In operation a little more than
two years, and funded, it Ia said, about ten
oils administration up to the present time
has funded about two or three millions OF dol
lars, and has made Its proper reports In ac-
cordance with the provisions Of the act. To
board to wipe out and conceal all traces of It's
proceedings, the books Of the Auditor In ref
erence to the matter when the Nichols gov
eminent scame into power were absolutely
spirited away and have never been discovered
to this day,
Mr.. President, was the amendment to the
constitution proposed to the people La 1874
adopted by them As the gentleman from
Morehouse well said, the. only evidence we
have Of the fact is the declaration Of the Re-
fncie evidence that 1t was not Had the Re-
turning Board, as organized, any right to
count the votes on the adoption of a constitu-
tonal amendment? Bya careful examina-
ton Of the act Of the Legislature, approved
November IL, 1872 it will be seen that no such
power was conferred upon them. And II the
act conferred no such power upon them must
say that / do not believe that they enjoyed
any such power. The act conferred no power
upon them to count the votes for presidential
ali ItntY nf,Tf
made othe vote Of Louisiana before the cleo
tcral commission to count the votes for Presi-
dent and Vice President Mr.. Mcdonald, OF
Indiana, in behalf OF the DIRECTORS to the Lou
isiana vote. argued this question very ably
the seven Democrats on the commission that
the Returning Board had no such power, be-
cause not conferred by the act. Now, il they
had no right to count the votes for presiden-
tial electors because not conferred by the act,
then they had no right to count the votes on
the adoption Of a constitutional amendment
for the same reason
Mr.. President, we have always held In this
State and throughout the whole country that
all that part OF the act Of 1872 as pretends to
Board was unconstitutional and void. The
constitution Of 1868 provides that the judicial
powers Of the State shall be vested In Su-
preme Court, In district courts, Id parish
courts, and In justices Of the peace. It was
GlAouEA tl4C aIASCL upulOu5 GAtLClSG VI ILLS
and unauthorized judicial
power that the Returning Board was always
able to defeat the will OF the people. 1t was
through the exercise Of this same judicial
power that they declared the constitutional
amendment adopted. There Is no evidence In
the archives of the State showing the adop-
ton OF this amendment By the people, ex-
capt g dilapidated copy OF q newspaper, the
New Orleans. Republican, which pretends to
be publication of the result Of the election
as declared by the Returning Board This
proclatms that the Returning Board have de-
clared the amendment adopted by vote of
g, 4l9 to 5000. In this. count they utterly
discarded the returns from four parishes
DeSoto, Bienville, Grant and VIM. They
changed the result at preeints In other par
ishes. 7 assert. without the fear of success
ful contradiction, that this amendment was
not q adopted by the people at the polls. lbe-
lieve that If the original returns Of the COM
mlssloners Of election for that year were
compiled and tabulated the result
would show that It was not adopted.
Now, NE. President, the report OF the COM
mittee, il not correct In law, is undoubtedly
correct in spirit. It proposes to treat the Re-
turning Board and Funding Board with no
rasnaat whatever This ic fhn v,nci+;o,, th "a