The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-05
ID, G. l.. REPLIES TO sPEs.
Democrat:

the E0it0E Oh bn1 DeIHoCEHts
Your able correspondent "Spes." quoting
from "D. c. l." "that the present debt was
made a contract between the bondhoders
and the State by n constitutional amendment,
admitted to and ratified by the people,
attempts to annihiate the legal proposition
therein contained by ascribing to him the
amIabIe weakness OF being distinguished
wit." and that 1t was meant, no doubt, as u
hike Let me assure "Spes that 1t too seri-
Gus matter to joke about, and %. G. L.
has no ambition to initiate Nero, or desire
IN fiddle over the ruins, and he Is sure
aSpes" is too intelligent to be classed with
asuch d Roman" There is time to laugh
and a time to cry; the poisonous distlment of
repudiatlon OF the Public debt OF the State"
which ID daily poured into the ears OF a peo-
ME, struggling TO rehabilitate her former
prosperity, lost by war and subsequent mis-.
rule Is enough to make the braveSt heart
tremble and the strongest man weep, and
presents little opportunity to be witty or
ioCoSe. In such an emergency, 1t Is the clear
duty OF every man, woman and child to stay
the matriedal hand that would wound the
honor OF it's own political mother. "Spes"
asserts that the constitutional amendment
was Illegally counted In by old Wells" and
therefore not binding on the conscience of
the State and Is null and void. LII we con
clusion Is true2 Has not the State, through
its legitimate officials, subsequently waived
that assumed fact, and estopped herself from
disputing It
State and to municipalities a. well as indi-
yiduals." % A. r., p. AGO, 20 Conn, It's. The
State Is bound by her judicial pleadings and
admissions the same as private persons, and
ia entitled to no greater right or immunity
Al a tigant than they are. Is A. r., D. 46l: .
Dillon on Nun. Corp, 1924. Perhaps, "Spes'
will answer, this Is q decision OF the
"Ludeling" court, but will he be able to say
1t Is not Authority" In Louisiana until re-
viewed and overrued? Ii he does, then we
refer him TO 16 Wall. $685. in which the SUI
preme Court of the United States adiudi-
Gates the same question and settles the poiHt
he makes, and says: whether majority
OF the votes cast were in favor OF the
constitution subscription, and iDasmuch as
he the Statel passed upon that question, and
subsequently executed and delivered the
bonds 1t Is clearly too tate to question their
validity where it appears, as in this case,
that they are In the hands OF an innocent
holder" See also 81 Howard, 544.
"Spes" Is misinformed as to the claw" he
is discussing. The funding act" of 1874 sec
ton IL, was passed by KellOgg's Legislature,
but 1t is nevertheless, and very unfortunately
perhaps. Flaw unto u.s." and says: THAT
each provision of this act shall be and is
hereby declared to be q contract between the
State OF Louisiana and each and every
holder Of the bonds issued under this
act and section l6 says. That
no court. or Judge thereof, shall !.
principal or interest OF any. bond issued I'M
der this act, or the collection Of the special
tax therefor" etc. And what has "Spes" to
say OF act No. So, ut page N OF acts OF ~
passed by our own people, amendatory OF the
act OF 1874, signed by Bush, Witt and
Nichols, entitled San act to enforce etfectu-
ally the constitutional amendments proposed
january "a, 1874, ratified at The general election
held on The second Of November, 1874, relative
to the State debt and the funding thereof
to protect the interests Of the State and the
holders of the bonds issued by virtue OF said
amendments, and for that purpose to amend
III e1sc-enac.Stn act entitled An act toprovide
fof funding obligations of the State by ex
change for bonds; to provide for principal
and interest OF said bonds, etc, and to make
contract bet,reen the State and holders Of said
bonds" etc. In the face OF such legislation
by our own people, how any intelligent man
can contend that the amendments" were
counted In by "old Wells" and therefore not
obligatory, or that bonds issued hereunder,
lpledgiDR the faith and honor OF the state, can
be now repudiated or even questioned, I'D. U. |
L. Is at u loss to know, and upon what prin
ciple in law, morals or common honesty, to
say nothing OF the supreme law OF the land,
which prohibits it In express terms. No
wonder Gov. Nichols would resign rather
than be party to such gross violation OF the
plighted faith OF the State, whose honor Is |
his guiding star. 1t Is the attempt to repu-
diate" and not the deed confohnds US, and
1t will cause every true lover OF Louisiana to
hang his head In shame and blush to own his
State. The Radical soldiers, who wrought |
burrows on her bosom with their iron heels
and "fretted channels In her cheeks" during
the war, never inflicted such an ineradicable
wound as that resulting from the advocacy, |
by some of her worthiest sons, OF recourse
to reputation, and should she, In an evil |
hour, hope to escape the weeds OF widowhood
by such an unholy alliance, her future will
be black indeed with the shadow of infamy
and dishonor. In comparison, what the Rad
icals did We're "trities light as air"
DEL.