The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-05-10

/ EV.
dasarvai ~ the peOple OF the State, because
| fbav ware responsible for the representatives
they sent to the Legislature. ~,
Delegate Davis. Of Claiborne, opposed, t tne
70 strike out. He did not believe that all the
honesty and intelligence of the State were
represented In the Convention, The arucle g
reported by the committee II adopted would ia
we're necessarily dishonest, He was opposed
To any such imputatiOn being cast. r.
/ Delegate Stone opposed the article. -
struck at the power of the Legislature over
| the appropriations a power secured W ~ ~
| the former institutions Of the State ana bo
! Congress by the constitution Of the United
| States. ~.
Delegate Lott opposed the article, He Old
not think that such q Limitation on the power Vna
Of the Legislature over the aPp hep ranven
ton yesterday and the debate to-day shoWea
that the report OF the committee mad not
been sufficiently considered, and he thought
| 1t would be well that 1t should De recon-
mtted ...
Delegate SutherlIn did not think the proper
construction had been put upon the article :, In
the course Of the debate. There was really
no reflection cast upon future legislatures.
For one, he was opposed 60 allowing the Leg
isIature to have any preferences In the matter
sta Rey over ne constitutional 0'sfs q ans
Delegate Ogden thought the Convention
should display some consistency In this mat
ter. A few, days ago this body had voted
voice. It now proposed to eurtail Legislative
privileges in the same direction.
Delegate Brdger opposed the original ar
ticle. Especially was the clause that the
the public debt before the members OF the
Legislature could draw their per diem OBJ
jectionable. Litigation was likely to grow
out Of the action Of the Convention concern
ing theg debt, and 1t might be that the adop-
ton OF Che article would prevent the Legisla-
The amendment offered by Delegate Steele
was then voted on and lost
The question recurring on the substitute
offered by Delegate Webster, 1t was adopted
and the entire article was stricken out.
Article was then taken up. 1t reads as
ART. 3. The General Assembly shall have
no power to contract or to authorize the con-
tracing Of any debt or liability, on behalf Of
the State, or to Issue bonds or other evidence
of Indebtedness thereof, except in the follow
ing cases:
first-On the occurring of a casual def
cheney of the revenue, when the temporary
liability incurred shall not exceed the sum
to be paid In not more than one year from
and after the day the loan Is contracted.
Second-In renewal of existing bonds when
they cannot be paid at maturity out OF the
S1uktD2 I1iQu OE OLleT resources.
Third-FOr the purpose OF repelllng lnva-
sion or for the suppression OF Instruction.
Delegate Bienvenu moved to amend by
striking out the first section.
Delegate Olivier moved to amend by adding
the words ian unforeseen emergency after
the word "of in the first line of the first sec
tion Of the article, and to provide that the
sum to meet such emergency should not ex-
coed $3.50, 900. instead OF 100000, and argued
at length In support OF his amendment.
Delegate Moore, of Lafourche, opposed the
adoption of the amendment, and gave the
reasons which actuated the committee In re-
porting the article In its present shape
Delegate MGGlOin opposed the amendment
He was opposed to the bond system entirely.
This has brought us where we are to-day.
He thought each generation should pay the
debt 1t created and not foist 1t upon succeed
ing generation. II the words unforeseen emer-
gency'' were put in the constitution and the
Legisiature.put Its construction upon them,
as it would, there would be no limit to its
power to create debts and Issue bonds Tor
another generation to pay.
Delegate Lagan thought our entire trouble
arose from the power OF the Legislature to
| issue bonds. For this reason he offered an
amendment striking out all that part OF the
create any debt, and forever prohibiting II
| from issuing bonds for any purpose except te
readjust the present State debt.
| Delegate Lyons was In favor Of the amend
ment OF Delegate Blenyenu. to strike out the
! first section. Bonded debt was the result Oh
! the cowardlce Of legislatures. They did not
| dare to impose the necessary taxation to meet
| the obligations they created, and therefore
shifted the responsibility upon others by
creating debt for future generations to pay
He thought the Legislature should be forever
prohibited from creating debt They should
| be made to pay as they go. In this direc-
| ton the report Of the committee was not suffi.
GENTLY restrictive, and therefore he favored
| the motion to strike out.
| Delegate King supported the article as II
came from the committee. He believed that
| future Legislatures could be trusted not t6
charge the people with any future debt Oh
| burden them with taxation.
Delegate Lagan explained why he offered
his amendment to the preamble. He was op
posed to the Legislature having power TIC
create any new debt, and thought it should
be authorized only to provide for the present
debt on the basis fixed by the Convention
The power Of the Legislature to create debt
was the cause OF the present unfortunate con
ditiOn of affairs.
Delegate Bridger moved the postponement
of the article for the present. Lost.
Delegate Warmoth moved to strike out al
| three sections Of the article, and insert one
providing that no debt shall be created excep
for the purpose of building road to Shreve
port, for which S20O00OO Of bonds, running
forty years, should be issued. Ruled out o
order.
came from the committee He believed SOM
discretion should be allowed the Legislature
and he believed that sufficient discretion was
given in the article as reported. 1t had al
ready been found that q too strict limitation
of the powers Of the Legislature was inoper
alive, and II this Convention tied The Legisla
ture up too strictly its work would not last
For this reason the work of the Convention o
1S45 did not endure but seven years.
Il Delegate Stone was in favor of the motion
to strike out. Too great restriction could no
be placed upon the power Of the Legislature
in this matter. 1t was q lack of such limita
tion that had caused the harvest of evi
which rendered this Convention a necessity
Ii there was any one thing more than anothe
necessary to be engrafted In the present con
stitution 1t was provision preventing tn
Legislature hereafter from having the powe
to bring such oppression and robbery upol
the people as had been exercised In the las
ten years. lApplause
Delegate Lott favored the amendment pro
posed by Delegate Lagan. He desired to sa,
that he did not believe because no such pro
vision had been Incorporated Id former consti
buttons that legislatures heretofore hat
| bod a,,thorif Ky To TO q hopdad dobt