The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-09

l
ny to the amount OF $1,000,000."
This act was amended by act No. q OF the
same year, ratifying and confirming the con-
tract between the Louisiana Levee Company
and the Governor OF the State of Louisiana.
| lhls act amended by providing that the
| commission to be appointed shall be required
| 10 limit The amount Of levees to be constructed
ana repaired as required by their report 80
tllat tney shall not exceed 100000 cubic
construction fund ever exceed $500, 900
annually. Acts of 1871, PIP. 20 and Ga
| lhese eIactneutS were modified by act
| NO ~ OF 1919 the main change being the re-
uuctlon OF the compensation to be paid from
| sixty cents 10 fifty cents per cubic ward with
| Inc following provision That the Auditor
shall annually levy and cause to be collected
| III the same manner and by the same officer
as the ordinary taxes Of the State are col
| leeted, sum sufficient to cover the cost of
all levees required to be built by the commits
| sion of engineers in their annual report with
| 20 per cent additional. Said taxes. when col
| lected, shall be paid over to the Treasurer
| of the State and shall be set APART ma n
special fund, to be known us the levee con-
| structiOn fund.- which shall not be used for
any other purpose than as compensation to
said Louisiana Lovee Company, and the said
fund shall be paid ON the order of the presi-
dent OF said company to the treasurer there
of; provided, however, that any surplus
moneys derived from the taxes collected in
any Year shall be placed to the credit of said
fund Tor the year next succeeding and pro-
vided further, that all levees constructed by
the said company before the first day Of
October, 1873, shall be paid for by the State
at the rate OF sixty cents per cubic yard, "as
the existing contract and laws provide"
BY the funding act of 1874, being act No. 3
of 1874, the levee tax was reduced to three
mills. In the same year, an act, entitled an
act providing for the acceptance by the Lou
isiana Levee Company of % reduction OF the
rate of certain taxes to be collected, as com
pensatiOn to said com pany from four mills to
three mills, and in considerat ion Of said TO-
ducti0n relieving said company from liability
from damages In certain cases. This act slip
ulated that upon the acceptance by the Levee
Company Of the reduction Of taxation made
In the funding act the clause in the original
grant, making them liable for damages, Shall
be repealed. Such is the Legislation under
which the Levee Company took its being and
exercised its functions, except the act OF 1876,
which we shall hereafter notice.
Did these acts give to the company n cInin
against the State? We think not They point
out what tho compensation of the company Is
to be, make 1t result from taxation, in no
manner, even by implication, point to a re-
sponsbility on the parto of the State over and
above the amount OF taxation to be levied. The
very tltleOf the original act indicates that the
COMPENSATION provided by the act Is the com
pensation to which the company was entitled.
The very clause creating the contracts pro-
vides rs we hayeseen, that the said Louisiana
Levee Company for and in consideration Of the
compensation hereafter, etc.
These laws forbid the idea that the taxes
were to become the property of the State, for
they delegate to the Ievee Company the right
to mortgage them by anticipation. They are
made payable after coll elton, not as ordinary
State taxation upon the warrant Of the proper
State officer, but directly TO the Levee Com
pany.
What are the reasons given for this CON
trarY view of these various statutes2 We
IL Il
issue of bonds, and thereby creates u fair in
fercnce that the State was to be liable for the
work. We think, on the contrary the pro-
vision authorizing the issuance Of the bonds
is the very strongest light by which to read
the intention OF making the taxes the com
pensation where bonds were not provided for
In fact, the inevitable conclusion from the
language of the statute Is that the bonds
were intended to cover only the period where
there was to be no taxation
1t is said that the amendatory act of 1874
points to the liability Of the State. This
claim results from the Language Of section 6,
which we have already quoted, and is pre-
dicated on the following: "And provided
further, that all levees constructed before the
first day of October 1873 shall be paid by the
State at the rate of sixty cents per cubic yard,
as The eristiag contract and tdUs pr0Uide"
This provision admitted no liability on the
part of the state. The section reduced the
compensation from sixty to fifty cents, and
ton of the rights of the company to be paid
at the rate OF sixty cents for levees CON
structed during the period when the law
allowed sixty cents. The words "shall be paid
by the State" were qualified by the words "as
the existing contract and laws provide" and
clearly pointed to the payment in the man
ner directed by the original law, without any
additional guarantee or source of revenue
That original law made the taxes the means
OF payment, and such was the construction
to t...ry
pertinent to the present controversy by our
predecessors. In State ex rel. Louisiana Leyee
Company VS.. Charles Clinton Auditor this
court, through the organship Of Mr. Justice
Morgan, said: I'VE do not see in what man
ner the amendment OF the constitution OF the
State which limits the State debt to SIS 600 900
Is yiolatve OF the law creating the Levee
Company. The State has created no debt In
their favor. 1t has assumed no responsibility
on their account 1t Is not paid or to be paid
out of the funds Of the treasury proper The
State incorporated the company, giving it
certain rights and privileges and imposing
heavy burdens upon it; at the same time it
contracted with the company with regard to
work OF great public utility, secured the COM
pany by imposing general taxation upon
all property, and made it the duty of the tax
collectors to collect the same and de- |
post the same collected In the treasury. |
But 1t provided at the same time that the
moneys SO collected shall be placed to the |
credit of a certain fund, to be drawn upon by |
the officers or the company. But this does |
not create liability on the part of the State |
Inc State does not pay its bonds are not
put, nor any one its creditor, nor can they be
It's creditor for any sum contracted by the |
Levee Company" IS A., 401,
This adjudication was provoked by the
Leyee Company itself-was rendered at it's
Instance in suit to which it was a party.
The company was therein claiming the /
amount of the taxes In the treasury, and the
payment was resisted on the ground that the
Ievee Company laws created debt, and
hence violated q constitution. The company,
n response, contended that their act created
10 claim against the State, but simply claim
% the taxes, and their pretensions were sus-
aimed.
This view was reaffirmed in State vs. Magin-
lis, &c A., $50. 1t was urged by the company
hat this construction was erroneous but as
We have seen it was a decision provoked by
themselves, rendered as their own construc-
ion of the contract and whether or not it
uffices to create an estOppel, we are clear
hat it points to the contemporaneous con-
truction given TO the acts, not only by the
company themselves, but by the court to
which they submitted it for adjudication, and
,,.ab f,tI l y