The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-09
THE BURDEN OF PROOF,

THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
We cannot see what objection the holder OF
a State obligation. originally honest and
given for value received, can have to the
Sitting of the State debt. We have no doubt
there are million or more OF such obliga-
tions that have been funded and are among
the consols proposed to be submitted to the
scrutiny of the coming convention. We're it
possible TO attribute selfish motive to any
bondholder, we could very easily see how this
overhauling Of the State debt would be good
thing for those Of them whose consols repre-
sent honest obligations, against which no sort
Of suspicion can be raised. Every proposition
looking to the investigation OF the State debt
and the throwing out of spurious obligations,
whether funded or not, is peculiarly and
specially In the interest of the holders of such
credits. This Ia 50 manifestly true that we
cannot, In reason, attribute to this class OF
State creditors any participation or sympa-
thy in the violent denunciation with which
the proposition to make them preferred credi-
tors of the State Is met.
It were much more reasonable to infer that
this opposition proceeds from people who
have no such confidence in the original obliga-
tions which their oonsols represent. Weven-
ture to assert that there Ia not q bondholder
of the State who could not, were 1t mani
testify to his interest to do So trace his consol
back to It's origin and establish beyond perad-
venture the character Of the original debt 1t
stands for. Assuming this to be true, only
those whose bonds represent tainted and sus-
pieious claims can have any interest In oppos-
Ing an honest investigation. These are the
bondholders who meet all such proposals
with the assertion that the consols cannot be
identified with the original bonds, which as
sertion we do not believe, however, TO be true
1t would be remarkable fact, indeed, If the
Funding Board, or whatever other authority
issued the oonsols, had not kept o record
which would serve to Identify every single
consol that has been issued. In this respect
there cannot be any possible trouble. The
entire debt can be sifted, and the good sepa-
rated from tho bad. and those bondholders
whose original claims are above suspicion are
the persons who ale most interested In such
an investigation.
But. has IL never occurred to the State
creditors that the proposition to investigate
and Bift the debt Is an assumption OF gratui-
tous labor on the part Of the Slater 1t Is an
universal principle that he who af1irms must
prove. The State might very well say to the
creditors, "We deny all your claims: we be-
lleve them all to be fraudulent and dis
honest, and we shall not pay cent or ac-
knowledge the validity Of O single one Of
these obligations until you prove them due
ynd noiEn 1fi t.1n In in h Id
would be the attitude of the State as de-
PENDANT and debtor. The burden of proof
is upon the bondholders and not upon the
people.
Speaking upon this subject the Times says,
abiding to those who are urging an investi-
cation: "WheneverN these gentlemen will
come forward and specify the fraud they com
plain of, we shall modify our views"
We reply that it is not their part to specify
They meet the whole suit with general
denial, and 1t Is the bondholders who must
specify This would be In accord with the
general principles Of the law
But there Is yet another rule Of evidence,
even more binding than this, which is to the
effect that the burden of proof Is on him who
has unusual sources of information, restricted
whether he alllrms or denies a proposition.
This rule Is all the more applicable Ii 1t be
true as Is affirmed, that the State is not In
possession of any record that will enable it
TO identify the consols with the original credit
they represent. This Identification will
depend upon facts peculiarly within the
knowledge OF the bondholders, and, under
the strictest Interpretation Of the law, the
burden OF proof Is on them.
As the representative Of the people and the
taxpayers, the DEMOCRAT certainly declines
the task Of specifying proposed it by the
bondholders' organ. Ample opportunity
should. and doubtless will, be given the other
side to specify: but, In case they refuse to
avail themselves of the opportunity, they
should not complain If the people bunch the
whole debt and do no better by 1t than they
can. The proposition is how to preserve the
people and the State, and not how to take care
Of the bondholders. It Is plainly to the in
terest OF those who have funded honest and
valid obligations into consols to come forward
and assist in the proposed investigation. But
II this class of creditors hold back they can
not complain IL their claims be massed with
tho bad and scaled all In the same proportion.
This is precisely what will be done II the at
tempt to separate the good from the bad
fail.