The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-18

Sea,tain updefnable inalienable rights OF
Sovereignty Inherent in all legislatures under
our representative system OF absolute and
inalienahle control OF the revenues OF the
State and of the taxation OF the people, and
In derogation Of this vital and essential prin-
ciple In our system of government" Pom
dero,ls words and well rounded periods he Is
familiar with and master OF, but these seem
s's0lnd and fury signfying nothing" and are
unsupported by respectable authority and at
issue with the best authors on constitutional
iaw-Cooley, Kent, Story and Dillon. Wherever
such Iepie1ation cOnferS o grant, or right to
an individual In the nature OF contract they
hold II is irfepealable, without consent or COM
penaatiOn The Supreme Court OF the United
States have said as much. In OTTO United
States ex rel Johnson vs. clark County, they
said: "There ia no provision In the act that
fhe proceeds of the special tax alone shall be
applied TO the payment OF the bonds; none Is
expressed, and none, we think, can fairly be
IMPLIED II IL no uncommon thing in tegts-
Iniion 10 prOUlde q particular fund as
security for the payment OF debt.
II has often been done by the States, and
more than once by the Federal government.
The act or Congress OF February rs, 1862, az
Statutes, 34Gl, set apart the coin paid for
duties on imported goods as special fund
for the payment Of interest on the public
debt and for the purchase OF one per centum
thereof for sinking fund, yet no one ever
thought the obligation to pay the debt
is limited 10 the amount OF duties collected.
Limitations upon a special fund, provided to
aid In the payment Of a debt, are in no sense
restrictions OF the liability Of the debtor.
Why then must not the special tax of one
twentieth OF one per cent be regarded as
merely an additional provision made for
the payment of the new debt authorized,
than as denial to the creditors Of any resort
to the ordinary sources from which payment
of county debts Is to be NADER Why should
such q provision be construed as placing the
holders of the bonds in u worse situation
than that of other creditors Of the county
These bonds are debt Of the county, as fully
as any other liability. Had the act which
gave the power to the county to issue them
said nothing Of any special tax, there could
be no question that the holdersbf the bonds.
like other creditors, would have resort to
the money In the county treasury OF any sum
found by them to be due by the county. II
would, therefore, have been the duty TO di-
rect its clerk to issue warrant for payment
as in other cases. And surely 1t Is not to be
held, unless such a construction of the
statute is absolutely necessary that when the
legislature authorized the county to incur
the debt, 1t Intended 10 deny To the creditor
the right to look to the treasury OF the county
for It's payment; in other words, that the
debt was sanctioned, but that it was stripped
of the usual incidents OF debt, and the
debtor relieved from attendant Liabilities.
And il Is not TO be inferred from provision
giving the creditor the benefit of a special
fund that 1t was intended to place him in a
worse position than that he would have occu-
pied had no such provision been made, and
that too in the absence OF any direction that
he must look exclusively to that fund" This
decision shows not only that it is no diminu-
ton OF sovereignty for the Congress of the
United States 10 set aside partlcula lar rev.
enue to pay u particular bond, but also that
the failure of the revenue to meet 1t Is not re-
strictive of the .olute liability to pay the
bond out Of other revenues, and the State OF
Louisiana will not diminish or affect her
bonded debt even II the constitutional CON
vention attempts to eradicate the tax OF five
and half mills, 50 solemnIy pledged for
their payment In 80 An. p. BIG, our an
nings" Supreme Court incidentally recognizes
the funding act as binding and constitu
tional. In 16 Wall, 318, the Supreme Court
says: "The States may change the remedy OF
O contract, provided no substantial right Sc
cured by the contract is impaired" And Mr..
Bayard answers "a. W." better than / can,
when, in speech on the judiciary, he said:
"AmoDg the obnoxious measures OF the late
administration was the loan Of S. 900,
which was funded at per cent. The loan was
created by a law and funded by a law. Is the
gentleman prepared to say that this debt,
which was funded by u law Of the former
the present? Can you, by calling the interest
OF this debt exorbitant or usurious, justify
the reduction of 1t? Sir, the true principle is
that one Legislature may repeal the act OF
former IN cases not prohibited by The c0nstau-
JiOn."
"a. W" is equally unfortunate in his ap-
wrenehes the word liability" from its true
meaning In the context. Mr.. Webster does
not use the word TO alter or limit the obliga-
ton of the State by the varying circum
stances which might occur TO her people pc
cuniarily. The word ability" is used by
him as synonymous with power and
duty" to fulfill It's engagement. Here Is
loans is the plighted faith Of the State
as q political community. 1t rests on the
same basis as other contracts with establish
cd governments, the same basis for example
as loans made by the United States under the
authority Of Congress; that is to say the good
faith Of the government making the loan and
its ability TO fulfill its engagements" Dir.
Webster never meant the absurdity that when
State contracted q loan the capitalist looked
into and made its validity depend on the
herself out as sable to fulfill her contract, |
and on the faith Of this representation sought
the confidence Of the lender. 1t Is a complete
reply to ga. W." to say that it Is not neces |
Sary to sue the State to force its officers to
perform duty imposed by law and that the
writ of mandamus ought to be more familiar
to him than his argument Indicates.
I'D. G. L." refers "a. w" to Otto Sal,
McCombs case VS. Board Of Liquidation, .
Wheaton $50, and l6 Wallace 220. u. 9. l..
THE STATE uEBr ANO ITs LEGAL RE-
LATEONs.
TO the Editor Of tho Democrat:
In my last communication ! said that the
holders of State bonds and the holders OF
city bonds occupy different legal positions.
In your recent clear and able editorials on
this subject you have anticipated much that
I intended to say, but as there is so much
Of the questions involved it
will be well to keep up the discussion. | said
that it would not be competent for the con
vention to pass any ordinance or put In the
new constitution any article, or for any future
Legislature to pass any act impairing the
Of contracts, because this is pro
hibited by thei constitution Of the United
States. admit for the purposes OF the argu-
ment that the funding act and the constitu-
tional amendment Of 1874, and the issuance Of
bonds in pursuance thereof,
constitute such contract as may not be i'm
paired; that for the purposes of the law they |
would be held by the courts, If jurisdiction |