The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-21
THE STATE DEBT AND ITS LEGAL RE-
LATIONS.

/ have been asked what the cases were to
which have referred In my last communica-
ton. / did not describe the nature OF the last
cases mentioned for the reason that 1t would
have consumed more space than could rea-
sonably ask you to give me. Will 90 go now
The case OF Marbury vs. Madison, Cronch.,
o. 1877, was this Marbury had been appointed
by the President, and confirmed by the Sen
ate, for Justice Of the peace OF the District OF
Columbia, Madison was then Secretary OF
State. The com mission had been issued and
signed, but the Secretary OF State refused to
deliver It to Marbury. He then applied to the
Supreme Court of the United States for q
writ Of mandamus. The court decided that
Marbury was entitled to his commission, but
that the proceeding In such q case was original,
and that the Supreme Court had no original
Jurisdiction to issue the writ.
In the other cases referred to by some Of
vo,r correspondents the writ was granted on
a different principle and have no application
whatever to such cases as we have been ais
cussing In the DEMOCRAT. These were o..
cases under the thirteenth section OF the judi
ciary net, which provides that "writs OF man
damus In cases warranted by the processes
and usages or Law, 10 any courts appointed on
~soe,sous holding office under The authority Of
fhe United States, mag be issued Stat. at
Large, p. 81.
The case In Is Wallace was this: Certain
narties In this State who went into BANK
ruptcv. had paid taxes to the State whlch
we're afterwards declared to be illegal, and
the Auditor of Public Accounts was directed
To issue certificates OF the amounts PAID by
them. Norton, the assignee, applied In the
district court for mandamus to compel the
Auditor (Graham) to deliver these certificates
To him. as q part Of the assets OF the bank
rupts, The writ was granted by the district
iudpe. and an appeal was sustained by the
circuit Judge. But on error to the Supreme
Court 81 the United States. the Chief Justice
said ''This court has held that the writ oil
mandamus may be used for the purpOstOt en-
forcing @ judgment rendered by the circuit
Court where its use by the State court foI
that purpose Is sanctioned by State laws, put
in such cases it Is used as process for the
enforcement Of Judgments. aHd not a. .sr g
eutYhoTitv To issue writs OF mandamus to ma
tional courts and officers ms arrays been hetd
TO exclude authority TO issue these Tr'ts 70
State courts and officers" Graham vs.. Nor
ton, Is Wall, p. All.
I
held bonds issued by the Board OF Levet
Commissioners of the evee district composed
OF the parishes of Carroll and Madison, IN tins
State This board had power by act or tnt
Legislature to issue the BOMBS ana proHyitu '
for the payment of interest and principal by
taxes levied upon the real and personal prop
erty within he district. The board failed x
levy the taxes and to pay the interest on any
part OF the bonds, and resigned Their oliice'
To evade this duty, as alleged by the bondhol
ders, who then applied to the Judge OF the DIS
trict Court, who was authorized by the SAM
act to levy and collect the taxes II the BoaT'
of Levee Commissioners failed TO DO 50. I'M
ATTORNEYS for the bOndhOlderS prayed In Lnel
bin for relief that the Ievee commissioners b.
required to assess and collect the necesSar.
tax to pay the bonds and Interest," ana IL Ine
failed to do so in a reasonable time lnaI ~
district Judge be ordered to DO the same. ~
how was this prayer answered by the gu
preme Court of the United States Justlc
Miller said 1T has been decided in numerou
cases, founded on the refusal TO pay corpora
ton bonds, that the appropriate proceeui ~
was 10 sac at lar and by a augment OF IN
court establish the validity Of the claim an
the amount due, and by the return Oh an OF
binary execution ascertain that no proper
OF the corporation could be found iaole
such execution and sufficient to satisfy tn
Judgment. Then II the corporation hdd ~
fhoritg to teUy and collect tdres TOR me Payme'
of that debt md,iddmus 1coutd issue 70 con
bel them 10 raise by td.rdti0n the amount nece'
Sdrg TO SGtiSJy ne deOt; hoino w. VI
Ieyee Commissioners, 10 Wallace OPP.
Now, Will anybody pretend that the Aud
tor of Public Accounts, the State Treasure
and the Board Of Liquidation, whom u
funding act directs to assess and collect III
tax OF live and half mills, to pay nteres
and principal on the State consols, constltu
a corporation which will make them naole
be sued In a Federal court for the amount
the State debt? They do not owe the den
They do not represent, like the levee com mi
sioners a district or corporation that do'
owe it. 1t is the State. of course, that 0w
the debt II it Is owed at all. | think ha'
shown that the doors OF the Federal cour
will be closed etfectually against any attem
to compel payment OF the bonds There
to be sure, difference in the nature of u
writ, and In the practice IN regard to it, b
tween the civil and the common law, but
will endeavor to show, in future paper, tn
the prospect Of collecting the five and hf
mill tax in the State courts will prove as
effectual as in the Federal courts.
EQUITY