The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-14
the courts to raise that question themselves.
Cooley 100. 1G1 and 1862:

only to be entered upon with reluctance and
hesitation: Il 10 solemn act In any case to de-
clare tnat thhf body OF men to whom the people
have, committed the sovereign function Of max
Ing the laws for the commonwealth have delfb,,
erately dlsrs garded the Limitations, imposed
upon this delegated authority, and usurped
power which the people have been careful to
withhold and It is almost equally 80 when the
act Whle a + Is ad1udged to be
mproyidient action, or error IL judgment than
70 Intentional disregard OF obligation. But the
time doubted, and by some persons persistently
denied. 1t 1s now generally agreed that the
courts cannot properly. decline. and in its per.
formanes they seldom fail Of proper support If
they proceed with due caution or circumspec-
ton, ana under proper sense as well Of their
own responsibility as of the re spect due to the
action and Judgment Of the law makers"
Therefore, this constitutional amendment
taken In connection with the act Of 1874 and the
act of 1875 to show whatit was Intended that
the people should vote upon at the time when
this amendment was submitted.
itself and which shall argue, Is the question
OF the adequacy OF the means provided for the
payment OF certain bonds, on which the COM
mittee has reported unfavorably.. 1t Is we'll
to keep in mind, MIR. President, the form OF
our government under which we live. 1t
ID well not to forget the starting point, SO
that we may never deviate from that line
Beginning with the constitution OF the United
States every State in the Union has con-
stitution of its own; every State In the Union
the departments Of the government WHAT
is the object Of that? That it should act
within it's scope, that none OF the depart
ments shall transgress upon the others. ana,
finally, that the people, in their soverelnRty,
shall not be overridden by any Of the depart
ments of the government by themselves Gre
ated Therefore, M. President, it was one
Of the wisest articles of the constitution OF
1852, which provided that when the State
lends its aid to any work OF public Improve
for the payment Of the principal and Interest
upon that DEBT; and, furthermore, that the
act should remain irrepealable, unless the
act repeating contained just the same clause
as to the ways and means OF payment OF that
upon the Legislature. That Legislature
could contract a debt OF $a,0O0,0oo, it Is true,
under the provisions of that article, and ap-
ply those So, 1000, 600 to works OF improvements,
railroads particularly. But the v, ry moment
moment the State subscribed to
any stock Of company, that mo-
ment 1t becomes q condition, SINE qua non,
in order to make the subscription Of the State
valid, In order to carry out and fulfill the ar
means should be provided for the payment OF
the principal and interest OF the debt which
the State contracts.
Now, Mr.. President, do the gentlemen pre-
tend-and I heard the assertion yesterday,
proved worthless; that the principal obliga-
ton survives the accessory? That Is good doc
trine SO far as individuals are concerned that
is good doctrine so far as 1t applies to the CIV
ing of mortgage to secure the payment OF a
prOmiSsOry note.
But it is bad doctrine when applied to a
State and why9 What was the object at the
time when the subscription was made, in 1852?
The object was the development OF the re-
sources of the State by opening new avenues
Of trade and commerce The State in the
future expected to derive q benefit from these
internal improvements. The State and the
Legislature thought the ways and means
adequate when they provided therefor, and
pledged the credit'of the State to the bond
holders. But, Mr.. President, that article OF
the constitution, the act granting the pledge,
the act creating the debt, and the bond
itself, are all parts of the same contract.
And the bondholder took the bond with his
eyes perfectly open. He looked to the law,
he looked to the constitution, he looked to
the resources, In order that he might ulti-
that there was no security in the investment.
Why, sir, II any other doctrine was held,
what would be the consequence? Suppose we
had not the act Of 1874, or the constitutional
amendment, which was intended to ratify
and correct all those irregularities. Suppose
it was not on the statute book suppose the
amendment of 1874 never was ratified by the
people, and the funding act OF 1874 never Was
passed.
And suppose we had gone on In this way to
1893, when all those bonds would mature,
what would have been the case then? Would
the bondholders have found any money in the
treasury to pay eight millions, Or four mill
ions, or three millions OF bonds issued forty
years before? Or would the people have been
taxed at once three, four or five millions to
meet the deficiency In the treasury? That,
sir, is absurd, because the constitution pro-
vdeS that the ways and means shall be pro-
vided for In the act granting aid for pur-
poses Of internal improvement, 80 that
p f@G fereg may an be paid 0f a0nua
that When the bonds mature the whole tax
may not come together, and the people be re-
guired to pay all at once. These were limita-
tons existing in 1852 These limitations We're
known to the bondholders; these limitations
were know to the parties who contracted
with the State. IF they took the bonds then,
with only the payment OF the Interest prOvi-
ded for-if they took nothing but that it is
all they can get. II the stock is gone they
lose it. If the State sold the bonds and got
the money from the bondholders. the State
owes the debt, and / intend, as far as my
vote goes, that he shall be paid.
This article of the constitution supplies ey-
actly the law upon the subject of minors. Ii
| am tutor OF a minor and obtain an order
OIL court 10 sell IIle property Oh Llle IllluOI
may do SO. But Ii the property of the minor
is sold for notes payable to the order of the
tutor, and that tutor puts the notes upon the
market and any one buys the property, he
buys it with his eyes open and he can never
recover if the minor chooses to deny the va
lidity of the sale. Those notes are not mer
camille notes. Unless the authority Of the
court Is given, the minor can at any time
have the sale annulled and recover his prop
erty. SO it Is with regard to this article Of
the constitution.
The very moment it imposes limitation
upon the Legislature it tells the Legislature
what it must do. And when the Legislature
violates the provisions of that article of the
constitution the bond acquires no validity.
Let us take an extreme case; extreme cases
prove the rule. Suppose the bonds in ques-
ton had been issued without authority; sup
pose Col. Heron, now member Of this Con-
vention, then Secretary OF State, had signed
those bonds as Secretary of State; suppose
Coy; Wick!ifle had signed them and that they
had been signed by the Treasurer; suppose
these bonds had been put upon the market
without any authority without any provision
being made as to their payment
Would not that have been in direct viola
ton Of that article of the constitution? Would
tho State ta-dav hn hold RI M n fhocn ds2