The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1879-03-28


Due in 1674.......................$ S7,166 SO
1676......... S7,OSZ w
4Otso40 w
-ttf' 80. 1877 1Z7,961 w
lS7S.........-. All ,0g W
1Sy1oOsAOO "a
Total Indebtedness. ....... $l3, OlS,77O "a
All contingent liabilities arc necessa-
rily omitted, as we have no data in
regard to this portion Of the States
Indebtedness. How much OF the
indebtedness given above is valid
and binding upon this people F.? How
much of it Is evidence of value re-
celvei and how much Is evidence of
fraud, IL now the riddle for the Con-
yention to solve. Funded or not, the
right to inquire into tho origin of
every item OF this Indebtedness is too
we'll established to require reference or
quotation. But we may refer to the
decision of our Supreme Court-lest it
may have been forgotten-in the case
Of the New York Guaranty and In
deInnity Company VS.. Board of Liqui-
iators ct al. The decision was rem
derel by the late Judge Egan last
year. In that case it was held that
I. In determining whether certain
bonds of the State, condemned as sus-
pected by the act of May II, 1875, are
legal obligations of the State, and en-
titled to he exchanged for consolidated
bonds, under the funding act OF 1874,
evidence will be received to ascertain
II they were issued In strict conformity
to law, and unless it be shown that
vnyrap 3easpo1 <S7z1 f13.< m 1,(r]i1
confederation, they sciX 1e AeItz as i1uxlitl,
although in the hands Of bona flde 0ac,s-
eys for cnlxe.
2. The bonds of the State issued to
the Mississippi and Mexican Gulf Ship
Canal Company, under act of the Leg
fslnture No. 116 of the year 1869, arc
not valid obligations of the State.
Here is decision bearing directly
ed debt. There must be valid con-
sideration shown, and what is equally
as important the Onus OF proof rests
upon the bondholder, even though he
he An innocent third party. But we
maintain that there are no innocent
holders of any of the bonds issued in
the name OF the State for railroad
schemes and other jobs. The world
had notice that the people of the State
did not approve these appropriations,
aud repudiated the obligation sought
to be forced upon them by corrupt
legislature, even IN atlvaace of any
definite action by that body. The fact
Of a want OF consent by the taxpayers
to become n party to this debt was no.
torious. II we mistake not, the Cham
Der of Commerce of New Orleans no
titled all similar organizations through
out the world that some of the bonds
about to be issued in the name of the
State were fraudulent and would never
he paid. 1t is perfectly we'll known,
mt any rate, that the entire Democratic
press of the State, speaking for the
property-holders, repudiated the con-
tract, denounced the Governor and leg
islature, and is on record, column after
column, in opposition to the payment
of any unnecessary expenditures made
under either Warmoth or kellogg.
1t is Il recognized principle of law
that fraud vitiates all obligations no
matter in whose hands they may be
found. What part of the debt is illc-
gal we do not pretend to point out.
We do not know and arc not in reach
of means to undertake. the task, if we
did. But this we do know that the
opinion obtains that II large portion of
the debt has no foundation in law or
Justice, and that 1t is the result of
downright spoliation. Under such a
suspicion, the Convention must not
avoid the responsibility. 1t must go
to the bottom OF every item and slit it
thoroughly. If the prevailing idea be
wrong, aud 1t be found that we IRE
not only morally but legally bound
for all the debt, then the condition of
things since 1874 establishes our bank
ruptcy beyond question or doubt.
The people are not able to pay the
debt, and their creditors know it. Our
condition grows worse constantly. A
dollar now stands in the place of two
n ~