The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-04-12


the public debt, and that 1t will resent any
and all attempts Of the Federal judiciary te
usurp the jurisdiction expressly denied in the
eleventh amendment. This granted, and the
legal question is settled. The bondholders
must look to the convention, to the sover.
eighty Of the State for recognition and ad.
iustment Of their claims.
Here the moral question arises: What
shall be done to secure justice to all parties
concerned2 In the settlement OF this ques-
ton there are but two inquiries to be made
First, what can the people pay ? what taxa.
ton can they stand and avoid bankruptcy
Secondly, what are the bondholders honestly
entitled to receive?
These two queries, we maintain, compre-
bend all the morality involved In this discus.
sion. What can we pay-and what ought we
to pay? This Is all there is OF 1t. We insist
that the convention has the absolute and con.
elusive right to determine both questions, and
this is the law.
Neither Of them will be hard to settle. We
insist, that on q fair cash assessment Of prop.
erty, the amount OF the present interest tax
is the utmost that the people can stand, for
all purposes. We further insist that nc
special tax, for interest or other purposes,
can be fixed In the constitution. We believe
that, under the plain restrictions Of the Fed
eral constitution, the utmost the convention
can do is to limit the rate Of taxation, and
this we think it should do.
This opinion Is not given unadvisedly, but
after thorough and conscientious study OF
tho fllnda mnntn1 I0v hn n3.,a
that the purpose Of the amendment OF 1874
and the funding act was to create contract
rights against the State, which, had they
been valid, would have invested the Federal
courts with complete jurisdiction over our
State debt. But that purpose was an unlaw-
full and prohibited one. The State, and the
people OF the State, could not have consum-
mated It, and whatsoever manifestation OF
their will they may have made, the Federal
courts would have been obliged to decline the
jurisdiction sought to be conferred. And
why? Simply because it is expressly forbid
den In the Federal constitution. 1t has been
repeatedly held that private person cannot,
BY waiver Of his rights, even as to the mere
accidental fact Of residence, confer jurisdic-
ton on court which does not possess it In
Jaw. How much more absurd, then, Is 1t to
contend that a single State despite the pro-
cess Of amendment to the constitution pre-
scribed In that instrument, can confer a
power, forbidden in express terms, upon the
general government. How much more absurd
still is it to say that such extraordinary pow
ers have been theoretically conferred by the
terms OF mere legislative act.
II the convention is without authority to
perpetuate the 511sa-mills tax, it is equally
poWerless to pledge to the bondholders 8
smaller tax, which they shall have tae right
to enforce in the courts, or to compel the
State officials to collect and dispense Ia a
purely ministerial capacity. The convention
cannot fix special tax for the benefit OF the
bondholders; in fact, it can enter into no
compromises or bargains with them. The
State creditors must submit themselves and
their claims to the simple sense of Justice
and honor OF the people Of Louisiana. We
believe. If they will accept this fact, that full
justice will be done them; but If they refuse
to meet the convention In this spirit and
choose rather to assume truculent and de-
liant attitude. they may expect nothing else
than reputation and square fight to the
hilt, with sword bare and scabbard thrown
AWAY.