The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-12

yonn Y; SteWart campbell d strong
Andrew Lee .. II HcimesV N'A'
J. Lincoln Ernest 4 GO.
/ James BuGkner WI, Mclean
J. Y. Diboll A. B. GriswJld Il Co
Marshall j. Smith Peter Ross
Theophile GALLON M@M"&
! This committee Of investigation made their
report to the Governor Of what they consid-
cred to. be the legitimate debt of the State.
Soon after that report was made the Legisia-
ture assembled in 1874, and passed act No. 8
81 1874 making proposition to oil the
sFs t tRs sas d q the ssate rs toe
who held the legal securities of the
State, to come forward and exchange their
| bonds for State GOnsOls at the rate OF sixty
cents On the dollar the Supreme Court q q
that act was q public proclamation, made by
the State Of Louisiana, that the State
Of Louisiana was. bankrupt, and that
T zee 81 State nv for s on creditors the patt e
made BY the State to fund their bonds at the
rate OF sixty cents on the dollar; In order to
place the matter beyond all question of doubt
bonds by the State is hereby considered
a valid contract between the State
and each bondholder, by this constitutional
power by which she could successfully repu.
diate that debt. I will not 90 into the legal
question whether the State can be coerced BY
the judicial power Of the Federal gov
eminent to do that which you would
have her refuse to do / know that
some newspaper lawyers say that you
cannot sue State; that you cannot get
mandamus; therefore, we are perfectly safe.
know all that; but, Sir, call attention to
the fact, and do not do 1t with view OF
1 United States has original jurisdiction In order
to compel State to comply with its obliga-
tions. merely allude to this, sir, as a fact as
to one Of the possibilities. Of all the humi-
| Convention ignore this solemn con tract, the
Federal government, the judiciary power OF
the government Is able to coerce us
into doing that which we have not
not enunciating, a legal opinion, It
| Is q question muck talked about / call at
tention to 1t rs a question among others
| which we are called upon to consider. Now,
as to the question Of the bonds funded under
the scheme which has been denounced, as
| sert as q fact that with the exception Of the
North Louisiana and Texas and the bonds Of
the Chattanooga Railroad Company, none
have been funded.
You say only legal bonds are to be funded.
What are legal bonds2 The State, as the
only tribunal which defines what legal bond
Is, the State has decided every bond that has
been funded has been passed upon by a
tribunal appointed especially for that purpose
by the State. II there were unjust as we'll as
just bonds funded, they were mingled by your
Legislative bodies, SO as to be undisttnguish-
able and sanctioned BY your State govern
ment. You first say that the bonds are legal
per cent to the holder OF bond who can
prove that his bond is legal one
I. defy any member Of the. majority
OF the committee to say which is the
reason that believe 1t Is impossible to trace
1t. This act of 1874, this constitutional amend
ment, Notwithstanding 1t has been declared
the law of the land by all the courts of the
State, Is now said not to be the law.
DE FAcro GOVERNMENTS.
1t Is said that the consti tuition of 1868 is not
our constitution; that the law of 1874 is not
ton under 1t. II that act Is not q law why are
we here2 III we are not here by q legal act OF
government, we are a mob. What Is the gov
ernment; 1t is the powers that be; 1t is that
cises authority, whether it be q force. a des-
Which WHICH, holds te a rens Of power and and ex 1as
cises authority. 1t Is immateriai whether the
power that controls the government is consti-
tutional; all de facto governments in
the internal. sense are the same;
but 80 far as the world Is
concerned and the obligations 1t makes with
the world, it is perfectly immaterial whether
the power be constitutional or not; 1t Is the
government that Is the recognized factor and
Its actions with regard to outsiders are always
solid.
Sir, do not speak unadvisedly. Ina recent
case In the Supreme Court
Such was the government Of England I'M
der the commonwealth, established upon the
execution OF the King and the overthrow OF
the loyalists. AS far as other nations are
concerned, such q government Is treated as
IN most respects possessing rightful author
lty; its contracts and treaties are usually en-
forced; Its acquisitions are retained; its legis-
latlon IS IN general recognized, and the
rights acquired under 1t are with few excep-
tiOns, respected after the restoration OF the
authorities which were expelled"
Keith vs.. Clark, collector.-Supreme Court
OF the United States, December, 1875 81
United States.
Syllabus.
A. Identity of State before, during and after
the Rebeltion.-The political society which in
1896 was organized and admitted as State
1ntO the Union, by the name of Tennessee,
has remained the same body-politic to this
time. Its attempts to separate itself from
that Union did not destroy its identity as a
State nor free 1t from the binding force of the
Federal constitution.
5. Contracts of State Valioity.-Being the
same political organization during the re-
bellion and since, that it was BEFORE an organ
1zation essential to the existence OF society,
all It's acts legislative and otherwise, during
the period Of the rebellion, are valid and OBJ
l1gatory on the State now, except where they
were done in aid of that rebellion or are ia
conflict with the constitution and laws of the
United States, or were intended to impeach
its authority.
g. Contracts Staten Northumberland
EUadence-lf the notes which were the foun-
dation of this suit were issued on a considera-
ton which would make them void for any of
the reasons mentioned, it Is for the party as
sorting their invalidity to set up and prove