The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-20

a0I i have shown In former artfcle tndt the
amendment of 1874 does not pi eeDd TO create
any ministerial agency by which the collection
aud payment of the interest tax OF five and
half mills can be judcisly enforced. II is q
mere br'utern TtImen. But 1t may be claimed
| that the funding act, which is Also declared to
| be part Of the contract with The bondholders,
| does create a power to carry into execution ne
| erms of the contract which may be reached by
| q writ of mandamus The seventh section ot
| this act provides among other things: mat tue
interest tax Aforesaid shall be conttnuiHg an,
nudl tar until the said consolidated bonds shall
| be paid or redeemed. principal and Interest;
and the said appropriation five and hall
| milisl shall be continuing annual appropria,,
| ton dur Ing the same period, ana this tepg ana
| appropriation shall auhorize and make it the
duty Of the Auditor and Treasurer. and the
| said board (the Funding Board1 respectiretv 10
collect said tds annually and pap sad interest
be fully discharged Here is an extraordinary
| attempt t. anticipate the taxing power Of the
State for the period Of forty years to delegate
| legislative power. and TO tie up the hands OF all
| Intervening Legislatu In the exercise OF the
sovereign power If taxation.
| Gan this be consttutionally done? deny It,
| II has been done and may be done in the case
Of the subordinate political divisions OF state,
a Ssx no a rvs i'm
divduals pledging their future resources. It
can not be done efectually in the State itself,
because In the exercise OF those powers essen
tial to the existence and we'll being OF the State.
| like the taxing power, each Legislature must
be the equal Of its predecessors. Whether such
|
nized and enforced or not by the subsequent
| Legislature must depend on its sovereign will
his Admirable e work on OonstitutionaI Ii@ita
tons. remarks: Perhaps the most interesting
QUESTION which arises In this discussion che
Is discussing the question of the enforce
ment OF contracts under the guarantee Of the
constitution of the United States against laws
impairing the obligations Of eontractsl Is
| whether it is competent for the Legislature to
SO bind up its own hands by grant as to pre-
clude 1t from exercising for the future any Of
to any Of the subjects within Its jurisdiction
whether. for instance. 1t can agree that Ii will
not exercise the potoe Of taration. or
right Of eminent domain as to certain
specified persons or property. and whether,
| II II shall undertake to do SO. the agree
the Legislature cannot dbnb.isf the pooer of ita
| successors by irrepealabe legislation, and that
any other rule might cripple and eventually de-
| strOy the government Itself Ii the Legislature
| has power to do this 1t is certainly very dam
gerous power. exceedingly liable to abuse. and
| may possibly come In time TO maxi the eonsti-
tutlonal provision In question as prolific of eril
as it ever has been, or Is likely to be of good"
| He speaks OF an agreement not 10 tepv tar.
| hut In principle II Is the same rs an agreement
to lerV certain tar for an Indefinite future, be-
cause both equally affect the power. Well may
Judge Cooley remark that the time may come
when the assertion OF tueh O power will be as
| prolific Of evil as the enforcement OF contracts
under the constitutional guarantee has been
| OF good. think the time has nOtr come la Lou
| siana when the advocates of the bondhoders
are making such extraordinary pretensions.
But suppose this point shalt be decided In favor
| OF the bondholders, will they have a case for
mandamns? 1t is. familiar principle with
| lawyers that mandamus only applies to cases
whel there are clerical or N inisterial duties to
| be performed. pure and simple. and where there
| Is no option or discretion to sbe exercised by
! the officer or person sought to be made subject
to the mandamus. His duties must all be so
specifically and clearly pointed out by the law
under which he acts in oil the details necessary
TO accom- pish the object that he will have moth
! ing to do but perform simple ministerial act
1t was one thing to enjoin an officer from per-
forming specified act, but It will be differ
ent thing to mandamus an officer who divides
| with dozen others the performance OF the du-
ties of taxation. In the first place the difficulty
Of jurisdiction would have to be met, for In the
Case Of Mqrb,Typ,. Madison and in other cases
us and 10 Wall 1t has been held by the Supreme
Court Of the United States that nlanddmus in
such cases as this would be an original pro-
original jurisdiction to issue the writ. Judg,
ment must first be obtained by suit
at law Gould the Auditor. Treasurer and
pose they get into court. then difficulties
will only begin. The duties of the Auditor and
Treasurer as to the levy and collection of taxes
the functions of the State proper that 1t would
be impossible to separate them from the State
20 as to avoid the necessity Of making the State
scribed by State laws. and are exceedingly linn
tied as part Of the machinery for the collec-
control Of the Legislature They have no
separate power TO levy or collect cent of taxes
| OF any kind; and the funding act does not say a
word as to the mode and manner in which
they shall proceed to collect the interest tax for
| the bonds. The authority attern pied to be con-
ferred on them and on the Board of Liquidation
| Is so vague and general that 1t would be impos-
sible for them to take a single step without the
concurrence and cooperation Of the State.
| What part In this drama the Board of Liquida-
| ton Is to play. and what parts the Auditor and
Treasurer. are nowhere set down, But sup:
| ma q "a mo Ia Ift dtrfy q hn
be discovered, the purposes of The bondholders
could be easily thwarted. The convention
could abolish the offices of Auditor and Treas
urer and the Board Of Liquidation. stop fund
ing and adopt a different financial policy and
other officers to carry 1t into effect. these o
GERS might all resign. or refuse act and suffar
the penalty OF disObedience. What then? In
the case Of towns. cities and counties in similar
circumstances the courts have stepped in TO
| administer the laws through their own officers.
/ but will any respectable lawyer say this can be
done with State and Federal court step IN to
| administer It's affairs? belive 1t Is intended,
| but 1t will hardly succeed.
| To pursue my original line OF thought. since
the war the strides towards CENTRAL cation have
| been more rapid and alarming The mass Of
outrage aud tyranny concealed under the spe-
| ciour name Of tho war powers" Of tn consti-
tuition has all been sustained by the Federal ju-
| dietary. The enforcement acts of Congress by
which the State powers have been transferred
by wholesale to the Federal courts have been
mostly sustained. cul minating at last in the SUI
preme act OF infamy by which Federal Judge
pulled down one State government and set up
another through bill In chancery, State cleo
tons are conducted under the surveillance of
Federal officials. The outrage by which sew
eral hundred citizeps of Louisiana were
dragged before the United States Circuit Court
- answer for acts which, Ii the parties had
been guilty of them, were only Uffenses against
the Slate. has Just been committed before our
eyes.
The next step in the diabolical plan Of the
sappers and miners" is to endeavor to place
defaulting States e we'll as cities. in the hands
Of receivers and United marshals, through
the usurpation Of Federal judges.
EQUITY.
To the Editor of the Democrat:
Tn, vic onl f,iEa to-