The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-13
THE PIOAYUNE AND THE STATE
DEBT,

The organ OF the State administration
comes out In yesterdays issue In open de-
tense of the bondholders but not In the clear,
ringing yoice Of its more pronounced eonfrere
the Times, but as IL something we're sticking
In Its throat. The Times would insist on pay
ing the debt IL it were one hundred Millions
dollar for dollar. regardless of the manner of
It's creation, or the frauds covered up In it,
but the Pic. thinks that portion of the debt
Is vitiated by fraud, and that the people would
be justified In demanding that this portion
should be eliminated, but says 1t don't amount
to much. 1t is like an apology for lost chasti-
ty when the laiasons are not supposed to have
been very numerous. But it Is the remark
able position Of the new organ on the ques-
tions OF law involved that we intend more
particularly to notice.
We quote: "The State consols are secured
by a contract, specifically expressed In the
law, and Incorporated In the constitution of
the State by vote Of the people; that this
contract does not exist by mere implication,
but by the definitions OF the law and the con-
stitution; that the State has given into the
hands of her creditors The judicial remedies by
which the contract may be enforced aud that
any attempt to nullify or evade the contract
would involve the State In expensive.and un-
successful litigation" TIL DEMOCRAT, look
ing at the case in a legal point of view, has
never denied that In the event of any
litigation between the State and her creditors,
II such thing can be conceived OF. the Fed
eral courts and even the State courts would
technically hold that the legality of the fund
Inc al 1,o irp. rfroH inf
the courts 60 behind the so-called amend
ment OF the constitution, fixing the tax OF five
and q half mills for interest, and making the
bond contract with the State, to see whether
either or both we're ever In fact adopted by
any fair expression of the people. But the
people OF Louisiana know all about these
things, and will not, IN their action in the
premises, be bamboozled or hoodwinked by
legal forms and technicalities. We have in
sisted, so far as the people are concerned,
that this Is not legal question, but
high public and political issue, in
volving the safety and future welfare
Of the State. Suppose the State
consol is a contract, and the funding act with
the interest tax amendment constitute O. part
of it, and that neither the Legislature nor
the constitutional convention can make any
law impairing the obligation of this so-called
contract, what then? Is it true ''that the
State has given into the hands OF her creditors,
the judicial remedies by which the contract
may be enforced Z" Not a bit of it. 1t needs
but the slightest examination to explode the
whole fallacy Of this statement. Suppose
the convention should conclude to say or do
nothing about the public debt, and the subse-
quent legislatures should follow the example,
and fail to make any provisions for raising
the taxes either to pay interest or principal,
what would be the judicial remedy" of the
bondholders? Could they mandeanns the
State treasurer or the fiscal agent to pay
the coupon when it becomes due? Leaving
out OF view that such proceeding would be
an Indirect suit against the State of question
able legality, the Treasurer of the State Oh
the Fiscal Agent would only have to answer
that there were no funds in his hands to pay
these coupons, and this would be sufficient in
law and purge the officer OF all contempt.
Suppose the desperate bondholders should
then go into court and ask mondomus to
compel the General Assembly Of the State 70
levy the tax provided form the constitutional
amendment Of 1874, what would be the re-
suit? Any court, Federal or State however
much inclined to aid the bondholder, would
be compelled to tell him that a politica
body cannot be maadamased to per
form any act belonging to it. What othel
machinery is then provided by law by which
the public creditor can take fold of the prop
erty of the people of the State? How ridicu
lous to pretend any such thing. Let US nov
suppose that nothing having been done b,
the State to pay interest or principal of tn
cNnsoas, the bondholders conclude to wait I'm
the maturity Of the bonds, and then brin,
Il It in the Federal courts on their contrac