The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-15
from the non-recognitiono
fhnuc honffa. ctr. d Y

from the non-recognision Il I.
those bonds, etc. ~
Now, there Is more t}san
dered upon the same nnint
have this thing settled 1 -
Now, Mr.. President.
matter which has not been = III
debate. It Is with difficulty INV
hold OF anything that NJ v
toned here, and IL has tean .' s3,as4
get up here without talkinunu ,.l
subjects. ! thought almost wv sss t.
been said; but ! think I 6svss1
thing new, and | can only ae ~ o.
the fact Of its being near n, nta VI
day. / think 1t Is d 1uats.
number OF gentlemen whnm E
were participants; that ii. -f I'M! e. g.
In the Legislature where ifs
Legislature OF 1873. MI, pn.'sss
line with my thought In favns NJ
holders OF bonds. T hold ii r,ya
containing twenty-one arnac1
constitution adopted by IN
1878. 1t is shown by fhe 49,
Secretary OF State that liz ~
1AiL uS VI OIL AAOLAUoIS eject Ii 8Sa{
voted to pass those amendmS
know, really and truly, who 49, -;
that Legislature that are rna Sss
Convention. I know Of several -
that were members Of that MI c15s
tlemen took Into eonstderati,y 81
tion .of the State OF LouIis
amendments were neceaaarv sss
perfect instrument. What All NJ
Sir, II they had been composer n H..
this body the first thing I'M T.!
done would be to pass al, act n aS
That there la no State DEBIT 49,
friend from Orleans INF. Fnrrss9
there, his natural disposition a. h
have induced him to propose srSs 1.
any rate there would have beNsi 8 s9
Now, sir, this is very serious ~
gentlemen were opposed, aid Safas
ment was opposed at the timA IN sy.g
of a constitutional conyenti1n
pe .9RRl,,, SAID as,5 .,ne,a -. 49,.
confidence In you; make I'm ssaa!|
necessary" Sir, I have read ~ sSsy.
amendments and I don't s8a, SSisyisy3!
saying that the State debt il irwin
see, It said, as q fundam entail nissSst
the consolidated funding act IL I'm Il
valid. I fail to see anything en-
constitutional amendments 81 mr.
fled by the people; but I do III 49,
relation to the public debt. TIha TIsv
of the finance of the State Ii eou1s,rIS "a
and the proposition upon which Ess
the amount Of tax necessary. u NIL IN
TWo-thfrds OF the members Ut rs 4.
ture voted to levy that tax. Whist "
10 mills necessary for? Was II nokk
interest on the State State? na fl
take 51la mills And was not thu HI
good purposes !? Idon't know. fsff
formation. Perhaps some getItIss
voted there can explain. I say.z
dent, that the innocent bondh0ldM ~
fled In considering that q ratiifcat3
made by the representatives Of III
January, 1875. when the subject ~
them, and they proposed these c0nIfli
amendments providing for q tar NIifIi
sarily covered the interest on
debt.
Now, Mr.. President, / find thu 1ff
more time in this branch In the y =
had intended to do; but as / Waes
Of the Committee on the State
briefly to call attention to the rspoI{
majority on this subject. Lst ~ NJ
what principle that COMMITTEES eol6G
us the necessity of passing the @
which they have introduced.
Now, sir, what Is the ordinane
iority OF the committee2 They stsf5iI
debt Is S12, 00O,O 900. AS ] have fefss
propose to pay 81, 900, 00O ID r0szhd
OF that sum about one-haK Ii n0t vi
these bondholders; 1t is To 81 t4afl
State, and as figure the report 9f
to 70 back to the State, and $f,66
the bondholders. / don't zee TINT
are enabled to get the benefit NJ tt Y
President, such Is the report III M
upon the theory that the acts ok Uni
amendments OF 1874 are void.
on that subject.
/ desire now to call your atteallg n
marked difference between WHIST tl
tee say In their report and Whit
the nature OF evidence called l0k b M
vention. In that connection
your attention to the extraordinary @
Of such great length and Wglght MI
from the Sixth Senatorial DiatTte e8
box to the Secretary signed by e.
petitioners. Why, sir, II the pf0lni5
petitioners are true / am With tl
Is because their promises gre ngt !
reference to this funded debt thAst
them to listen to me, and h0pe s1ey
what I have to say to-day. I aeksyes
that petition, and you will lind %
nary difference between what t
was the case and what really u tnef
did the petitioners say? What 0omg5.
ity Of the committee Say2 Ehe = a.
the committee In their report sey
"The theory or principle upon W.
committee have prOSecutM H1ess X
and based their recon mendati0lJ
Invalid or fraudulent debt sh0aIM Il
the people OF the State, and ulat
and honest debt should be paid
The members of that commlts j
me out In the assertion, that r.
same opinion Iii the committee NM
was when asked, without any 0Qlkl y
my part, to go to the COnvenuge
said that / would use my beet el0eE{ s7
out the fraudulent debt q T. Z Is 5
with q view to the illuminaQo1
have always been Of tlat
have everything to facilltase
mittee with q view TO- ri
The fraudulent portion Of the g.
vestigate it now. lam willing III = y
appointment OF a committee 10 ~
the bottom Of this questi0 r.
objection to that now, Id the ~
400 people. They are all lab0st ~
dea that these things are al lfasz sss
ne should act like all clear-rain0e8
With reason. We must think W. M
8 fraud or not. We must inps a.
ion't condemn without inVesn1
,itizens were Under the impres
of the committee haA ] +
,hese bonds fraudulent. See W. i9
Conference.-The people OF LoulsIs ~
it various times. By. .r6s0l utl22nase M ~
mass meetings and addresses III M aasss2
ees, given notice to the world Wy. 49, n
I'd to use all the means 10 tneIL y " h
1ent the payment OF any D0nlsysss E
Il the State, fraudulently Of eo azaaesesI ~
" the revolutionary and oppIe<s1sf51I
nents that ruled Louisiana from ",
Now, Mr.. President, Id the fIsss
will see that they are only oppoe ~
emit bonds. / am not In favor q g5S7]
fraudulent bonds or fraudulo NJ - -
committee made mistake; Meyx '
ed, and the people OF the sta aSssaI + b
hN Al = ~ S1[Y y H