The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-14

constitution. which only recognizes three CO.
ordinate branches In our government. II
they had judicial powers they were conferred
by the act creating them, ana aae h aes pro- ,d
vides they shall only luna Vallu ponas ana
warrants.
II they funded invalid bonds and warrants
they went beyond the scope Of their deie9ated |
authority, and their act is not conclusIyyet anu
final and still may be inquired into u tney
were court invested with Judicial powers |
they could not sit beyond the jurlsdlctlon OF
the State, and everything they did IN New
York must be null and void; Now, 10 1urther,
that the Funding Board funded obligations
Of the State and bonds Of the State that after,
wards have been declared unconstitutional
by the Supreme Court. Will the gentlemen
pretend to tell me that the funding OF these
bonds will maintain their validity?
/ will cite for example some Of the Loulsl-
ana and Texas railroad bonds which were
funded, the exact amount OF which 90 no.
recollect. These very bonds were afterward
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court, or the issue of those bonds was de-
ciared unconstitutional by theSupreme Court.
Which of the two courts, the Supreme Court
or the Funding Board, has the greatest
authority before the law? Is 1t the Funding
Board?
Again, Mr. President, some Of these bonds
that we're to the credit Of the school fund
have been funded; and the Supreme Court
decided in the case Of Durant VS.. the Funding
"
to that fund, issued under act No. 81 OF 1872,
that the purchaser at the sale Of the bonds
had no title to the bonds, and, therefore, he
could not ask that the bonds should be paid
81 of 1872, was an act of spoliation, and UNI
Ii it was an act Of spOliation, and was
constitutional, 1t is no longer in existence,
and, therefore, 1t is impossible for the bond
holder to collect his money against the State.
II on the other hand, the position is taken
that the new funding of the debt gives
validity to that debt so that we are estOpped
from inquiring into the validity OF
these bonds, then you recognize the principle
that the act Of the Funding Board Is greater
though the Supreme Court has declared that
emission null and void, yet you are bound to
pay that emission the moment the bondholder
presents this funded bond.
MI. President, ii 1875 there was subse-
quent act passed to the one passed in 1874.
That act declared that S14,0OO,OO0 Of State
bonds should not be funded until they re-
ceived the test Of judicial Investigation. Who
that Immediately followed the adoption Of
the amendments to the constitution in 1874
We're they not the proper parties to, give
Interpretation to the law OF 1874 and the
amendments to the constitution submitted TO
the people In November, 1874? Is not this
contemporaneous authority? And yet what
does the act of 1875 declare? That S14,000,0O0
Of these bonds were declared doubtful, and
that this Funding Board shall not fund any
Of that debt of Louisiana before the bonds rt-
ceived the test Of judicial Investigation.
Hence 1t Is apparent that the law Of 1874
never intended to confer judicial authority On
that board.
The judicial authority was only vested In
were valid or invalid. Therefore, l say that
whatever bonds were funded before the con-
stitutional amendments OF 1874 were adopted,
were funded by a tribunal that had no author,
ity to test the validity Of the bonds presented
to them, and that to this day this Convention,
or any other authority of the State, has the
right to 20 behind the acts Of that board to
ascertain whether or not those bonds funded
In 1874 were valid or not.
Why, sir, IL the doctrines were otherwise,
what would be the result? 1t Is apparent to
to everybody in the State that there We're
millions upon millions Of bonds on the mar
ket before 1874 and at the time when the
amendments were adopted. 1t was known TO
everybody that the intention Of those amend
ments and the act Of 1874 was to scale this
debt; to find out what portion was fraudulent
and what was good, and only to omit consols
after it was ascertained whether Or not the
bonds presented were valid or invalid,
and for the valid ones consols were to be
given In exchange.
Therefore, Mr.. President, II anything has
been done to cast any reflection or shadow
upon the acts Of that board Of 1874; it | have
judicial powers, and that its decision is not
final, and still subject to Investigation
say, sir, that 1t is within the power of this
Convention, as we'll as in the power OF the
courts Of the country to ascertain, when the
time comes, whether or not the State iS
bound to pay those bonds funded in 1874 and
partly In 1875.
Now, sir, the constitutional amendment of
1874 begins: THE issue Of consolidated bonds
authorized by the General Assembly," etc.
The issue referred to cannot mean an invalid
fac r don't how that Ia Y,pGGihta fTha
issue referred to in the constitutional amend
ment can mean only valid issue, and why?
Because at the time when this constitutional
amendment act was passed by the Legisa-
ture, and III this other act it was declared
that the board should have no other authority
except that to fund valid obligations There
fore, the issue OF consolidated bonds referred
to IN this constitutional amendment
mean that it refers to valid bonds.
And when the people voted upon these amend
ments in 1874 they voted for them with the
lights Of the act Of 1874 creating this board
before them, and with a certainty. that that
and that none but valid bonds should be
funded by the board. Therefore, it is idle to
say, Mr.. President, that the constitutional
amendment means that every bond funded by
that validity has never been had before any
court of justice. The issue referred to cannot
mean an invalid ISSUE. but q valid one.
The people voted for the adoption
of this amendment or the legisa-
tive grant under which it was granted.
They cannot be estopped from inquring into
the acts Of the agents if the latter have ex-
cceeded their delegated authority; 4 don't see
Mr.. President, how it is possible-how the
people should be estopped from inquiring into
the acts OF their agents, particularly ii am
correct In saying that these agents were not
a judicial tribunal, clothed with judicial pow
ers. Certainly it was not competent for the
Legislature to create a court, inasmuch as
the courts Of the country had already. been
created, and they could create no more
Now sir, | take 1t that the question Of the
constitutionaIity OF the acts Of the Funding
Board have never been tested by the Supreme
Court. take it that that question has never
been brought before any court. AS far as I
know that question was never urged. 1t is
then an open question for the courts to de-
eide; and [ certainly desire that my State
shall have the benefit of that decision. Why,
sir, six or seven millions were funded by this
board prior to the passage OF the act Of 1875,
which provides that none shall be funded ex-
cept after having received the test Of judicial