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

l SSe.1AAAIAAS0
respective Of the question whether the fraud
discovered is Of itself sufficient to change the
result. re party taking a,sy thing By an elec-
SEE 81 e.asnes ey yber Gzs rs s As
same effect sections 302 155, 391.
This argument, however, Is rendered Of
less Importance by the fact that, as already
} demonstrated, our position is lmpregDable,
even under the provisions Of the funding act
objection is made to the majority report ON
the ground that the bonds have been SO com
mingled x q II funding that It s impossible to
roc y pa Z, ne bsg bonds fr
recognized as valid. Str, this state Of affairs
g not the fault Of the State Of Louisiana
Inc FUNDING rns,h,t B9ard ..a was as have
illegal obligations OF the State The
funding act, If / am not mistaken, provides
for the issuing Of consols, as small In amount
us 800. The holders Of claims against the
State, could they not have fun led, under the
act In such q manner as to have kept the
good distinct from the bad IT, sir, they had
SO funded them they would have received
! designated bonds for the legal claims and
i, other designated bonds for the illegal ones
The State then would have encountered no
difficulty In reaching withits money the le-
Ultimate debts which it owed.
4 But. sir, they chose Of their own voition to
make Of the Funding Board an instrument
for the mixture Of their claims to such an ex-
tent thatth confusion was inextricable. The
fault. sir, Is theirs and not that OF the State
OF Louisiana. 1t was not the act OF the State
In SO funding these bonds, for, under the law,
gal claims against the State. The holders
Of the bonds having for purposes OF their
own inaugurated this difficulty, having
courted this confusion, have shared tile ad-
vantages in favor OF the good bonds with the
vicious, and all the State can do ID to settle
by distributing the amount really due pro
rata upon all the bonds. Ii these creditors do
not choose to surrender these bonds and draw
their pro rata, why, sir, let them bear the
Indeed sir, this is more than the State could
be compelled to do. l read from .'Story on
Promissory Notes." edition Of 1s45 $3.50, as
follows: "There Is one respect In the case OF
illegality Of consideration in which 1t Is dis
sideration. In the latter, II there be partial
want or failure of consideration, It avoids the
note only pro ta1lt0; but when the considers
ton is illega! In part, it avoids the note IN
toto"
i III these bondholders hold consols q portion
of the consideration OF which was considered
illegal, by reason OF q violation OF the consti-
tuition, might the State not have Insisted that
the whole bond was ieavened with illegality
and destroyed?
Let me recur for q moment to the consider
alton of article III, to cover an omission. 1t
Is contended that the clauses Of these railroad
acts provides that the stock purchased shall
stand pledged for the principal and interest
Of these bonds, constituted adequate
provision" as contemplated by the
fundamental law. Sir. the Supreme
Court OF the United States had occasion to
discuss this question in the Morris Ranger
, case. It held that such provision In an act
authorizing the city OF New Orleans to sub
| scribe for stock was not intended at
al as means ynv Of payment a but eo the
i table collateral security, which did not
impair the right of the creditor to other
, means OF enforcing payments, and In the
J same case, 1t was declared, thateven had such
! been the means OF payment contemplated
soned, that il the stock was valuable. It could
be disposed Of Iii the ordinary way land the fact
i that bonds were bought for it was proof that
1t could not be considered as worth its face
It was intimated that, had it been intended
that the stock alone should be the source OF
payment the Legislature would not have
, been SO senseless to offer or the capitalist to
, invest IN such stocks IN the roundabout way
the acts provided: that neither could have
Intended that the stock should constitute the
, main dependence OF the investor.
But one more point, Mr.. President, and am
done. It Is urged that the Democratic party
has approved this debt. Even had 1t done
SO, could 1t waive q violation Of the consttu-
! tion2 But, sir, examine Its platforms Of 1874
and 1876. The ratification Of an illegal debt
would have to be express. So far from an ex-
press approval it. in every instance, used in
connection with its pledge as to the State
debt, the terms illegal debts and obligations.
! 1t Is said that the Nichols government has
, ratified and made good these illegal bonds.
, Sir, il they did they had no authority from
the people who elected them. But If they at,
tempted 1t they were absolutely without
i power. Who created these illegal debts? Leg
1slatures and governors of the past. II, sir,
, they could not bind the State for want
of power, how can subsequent Legis-
, lature or Executive, with no new grant OF
, power, bind the State by ratification or es-
topped. He who cannot create debt cannot
make 1t valid by subsequent approval Sup
pose buys bill of goods and charges it to
B and g, the seller applies for payment,
: whereupon B disputes the authority Of A Is
! it sufficient for G to secure the written in
dorsement of A, setting up that the contract
is binding upon b? .-
for the patient and considerable hearing you
; have accorded my remarks. / am only sorry
that your patience has not been more amply
rewarded.
i Upon the conclusion of Delegate McGloin's
remarks, on motion of Delegate Warmoth
the committee then rose, with the under
standing that the subject Of the debt should
be made the special order of the day for to-
morrow after the reading of the journal, when
he would address the Convention.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
The report of the Committee on Public Edu-
cation was taken up.
On motion the Convention decided to recon-
slider the fifth section of the fifth article
adopted On Tuesday, as follows:
The Legislature may appropriate to the same
fund the proceeds, In whole or In part. OF pub
licIands not designated for any other purpose.
Delegate Wells moved to amend by adding
land shall provide that each parish may levy
a tax for the public schools therein
Delegate Stevenson moved to amend the
amendment by adding the wordS (which
shall not exceed the State tax" Accepted by
Delegate Wells.
Delegate Lyons moved to further amend
by providing that no parish should be allowed
by such school tax to exceed the amount Of
the parish tax rate fixed by the new constitu-
ton. Adopted.
The amendment of Delegate Wells was then
adopted.
A motion prevailed to reconsider the vote