The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-12
THE NEW ORLEANS DEMOCRAT, THURSDAY JUNE T. 1879

NEW OKIEANS IEMOOH
1 simply an exercise OF power not granted by
law Al cited by the minority. We present q
i case Of attempted exercise OF power, directly
4 III the face 81 prohibitory, or remedial leRisla-
ton.
II is urged that the State is precluded by
/ decisions Of the Supreme Court and decisions
Of the Funding Board; that their adjudiea-
1 tiOns are conclusive upon the State. In other
words, presume they are pleaded as re- az
judicoia. This plea fails entirely. By the ex-
emption Of the State from legal pursuit, the
enforcement OF claims, even Judgments, de-
ponds upon the public conscience. However
O mans property is affected by adverse Judg
ments OF the courts, they Gun have no con-
elusive effect upon the moral question, tor
conscience has not been relegated to Judicial
control. AS to the intrinsic right or wrong OIL
the case, judgments neither make 9 claim
more or less just than they originally were.
i cial pursuit, the decision as to his moral obl-
cations In the premises rests with his con-
science alone. "A claim which 10 intrinsically
unjust in that forum gains but little strength
4 from affirming decisions. and such DEGREES In
no case have weight other than as the opln-
ions Of d certain number Of men more or
less learned in the law. And we, one hum
dred and thirty -four, drawn from all parts OF
the State, representing its people, have the
right to exercise our Judgments and con-
sciences US to the moral obligation OF our peO-
pie in the premises, and are not to be pre-
cluded from performing this duty. But / en-
phatically deny that the Supreme Court has
decided the question at issue adversely to
the opinion Of the majority OF the committee.
On the contrary, have cited from them two
opinions which are entirely in accord there
with. IT, In some OF the earlier cases, In de-
fault OF the presentation Of this particular
issue, they have approved some few Of these
bonds, such decisions can have no weight as
to this question, 1t never having In them been
presented. As to the Funding Board, us con-
stituted under the Kellogg regime, Its opin-
Ions, as presidents, are certainly most valu-
able.
But, sir, II we admit, for the sake ofargu-
ment, that the funding act has become a por-
ton Of the constitution, and its provisions q
still, more cannot be claimed than it actually
allows. That act never contemplated confer
ring judicial functions upon the Funding
Board. The constitution restricts the exer-
courts, as provided for by the constitution.
The act itself accords them no such power.
On the contrary, Its duties are clearly defined
and its authority circuEascribed.. Il the State
Is bound by their action, it Is not by reason Of
their being decisions, judicial or quasi-judi-
cial, but by reason OF their agency, as princi-
pals are bound by the acts OF their agents In
either event, their power and authority could
not extend beyond the scope accorded In the
act creating the board. The act No. 8 Of 1874
distinctly defines the duties OF this board.
After providing for the consolidated bonds,
1t thus declares for what debts they shall be
exchanged: "for all udlid outstanding bonds
4 and all uahi warrants drawn pre-
vious to the passage Of this act" etc.
This was al act OF Legislation, and as such,
presumed juris ct de jstre, to be known to all.
The board had only such powers as this act
gave, and no more. Persons dealing with
them were bound to know the extent OF their
authority, and the State cannot be held where
that authority has been exceeded. The board
had no authority to fund other than the yulid
debts OF the State The funding of illegal
claims was beyond their powers and would
have been SO even had the word "yalid' been
omitted. The word is, however, useful In this
controversy, for had 1t been omitted there
might be some force In the argument that the
State had left discretion with the board. But
Its insertion was d restriction which clearly
excluded the right to fund aught but valid
obligations And 80 the case ID stronger than
one Of merely exceeding authority by an
agent; it is q case Of exercising power for
| hidden III the body OF the DrocuratiOn. We're
i this the case of O private Individual, his right
to contest obligations SO issued by his agent
In violation OF the express provisions Of the
pr0curation would be clear, and why a State
| should not avail itself of the same wise and
| protective laws is hard to comprehend.
But further In the body Of this act we have
another clause which makes this restriction
more emphatic. The funding Of illegal ohliga-
tions is not only placed out OF their power,
but it Is made criminal. Says the law: III
any member Of said Board Of Liquidation
shall knowingly audit and fund any illegal
claim against the State, he shall be deemed
guilty III misdemeanor, and shall, on con-
viction, be fined not less than $1,000 and i'm
prisoned not less than two years, at the dis
erection of the court" Now, sir, how can it be
contended that funding illegal obligations
was within the scope OF the authority OF the
board2
But still further, whoever procures another
Il tr ifrln G Iar ~,
derive no advantage from his wrong doing.
Still more emphatic is this restriction made
by the clause which follows: "And any per-
son knowingly procuring the same to be done
Is the funding Of illegal claims made criminal
on the part OF every, person participating
therein. Now, how will 1t be contended, that
an act forbidden by law, denounced as crimi-
nal, can give rise to valuable rights2 In other
words, can q claim, originally illegal in its
character, gain validity by adding crime to
/ the original wrong of Its creation?
/ The anxiety with which the funding Of ille-
gal obligations was desired to be guarded
against Is also shown by the fifth section Of
phatic In It's restrictions, and declares as fol-
lows "The consolidated bonds herein au-
thorized shall be held by said Board Of Lii
quotation onty for the purpose OF exchange as
other purposes than as authorized by this
act, and any member of the Board OF Liquid
alton using, or attempting to use, or attempt
| ing to induce any person or persons touse said
bonds, or any Of them, for any other purpose
on purposes, shall, on conviction thereof, be
punished by fine of not less than $4,000 and
by Imprisonment at hard labor for not less
than one year." So we find the original
question still legitimately before US, and the
validity OF these claims still dependant upon
the circumstances attending their creation.
And, Sir, II the constitutional amendment
be @ contract, it is q contract only in accord
ance with the terms Of the funding act, APP
plicable to consols issued in accordance with
its provisions, and no other.
But there is no legal proof Of the adoption
of that article by the people, The facts are
that the original returns, showing the vote
upon this question, had been abstracted from
the archives Of the Secretary Of State when
the Nichols government came into power.
I may note this abstraction as strong evil
dence that their preservation would have
disclosed damaging facts. The only evil
dence now accessible to the world is copy of
the Republican, containing what purports to
be a certificate Of the result issued by the
WnI1 pafur IN, fro, AL