The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-09

constitutional Limitation, and we can look
with little favor upon their attempt now to
| reverse the concluded Jurisprudence to which
they have, by judicial admission, given adj
| herence.
We are told that the Supreme Court of the
United States has given u contrary construc-
| ton to the Levee Company laws, and the case
relied on Is that of the Board Of Liquidation
vs.. MeC0mb, Otto, 53G. Ii the claim was
true 1t would not command our attention,
because at the date of the rendition Of the
Judgment OF the Supreme Court of the United
States this court had not only declared that
the Leyee Company acts created no debt,
but that II they did, they would have been
violative OF the State constitution, because,
ut the date OF their passage the twenty five
million dollar limit was already attained. IF,
then, the construction given to the
opinion OF the Supreme Court of
the United States was correct. we
should have to conclude that that high
tribunal had disregarded the construction
given to a State statute by the highest court
in the State, and have disregarded the adju-
dication Of the tribunal of last resort within
this State rs to n question whether the State
debt had attained the constitutional limit.
Such. however, is not the case. The decision
IN the MeComb case was rendered on the fol-
lowing state of facts: The Legislature
OF 1873 had appointed commission to asccr-
tain the amount due the Levee Company, and
had provided for the Issuance to 1t OF evidence
OF debt therefor and had made these evil
aences OF debt fundable in consolidated bonds.
me funding Of these evidences of debt was
enJoined by MCComb and the opinion OF
the Supreme Court Of tho United States
proceeded upon the hypothesis that the State
nhd recognized the debt, and therefore, the
sum due the Leyee Company was n debt OF
Cho state The language used by Mr. JUS
llce Bradley clearly sustains this conclusion.
ne says, The amount payable to the Levee
Joupany ior us services Is none the hess
debt because already provided for by special
taxes, and, SO far as the State Is concerned
IS no more oil public burden when charge
able upon one fund, than IL ia when charge
able upon another. III the General Assembly.
for cause assigned, sees fit to alter the mode
of payment, 1t Is difficult to see who else bas
the flght 10 complain, unless specially in
Jured by the change. The taxes formerly
appropriated to IL will be liberated and made
available Tor other State purp0ses."
We would be compelled to reach the
same conclusion II the act Of 1875 were before
us, and If the constitutional limitation had
not been reached. But in the present contro-
versy the act OF 1875 which was the cause of
the decision in the McComb case, ia botted
from the statute book. The act of 1877 under
which this suit is brought, and the provisions
OF which have been accepted by the company
provides that nothing herein shall be con
sidered as affecting any legal right Of said
Levee Company for the purpose Of said suit
except any rights claimed by them under tho
provision OF act No "a of 1876, which shall be
considered in said suit as non-existing null
and void, and no claim in favor of said com
pany shall be considered as flowing from said
act or any certificate presented hereunder"
1t Is said that the act of 1877, under which
this suits brought, constituted new CON
tract with the company, and provided for its
payment, part in bonds and the remainder
from the e. le ,n taxes; hen.s whatever
acts, they are enlarged by the act
Of 1877. The terms OF the act Of 1877 afford the
best denial of this pretentIon. Section OF
that act provides that nothing In this act
shall be construed to waive any of the de-
lenses OF the State to the suit herein authoized
to be instituted, 1t being the true intent
of this act to refer to the court for
decision and adjudication under exist
ing laws, the entires subject matter of
isina and the Louisiana Levee Com
pany, growing out Of the alleged contract
made under the provision Of act No. 4 Of 1871
approved February 20, 1871, and act No. AZ Of
the acts of 1873, and all acts amendatory
thereto, and nothing, moreover, herein shall
be considered as affecting any legal right OF
said Levee Company for the purpose Of said
suit, except any rights claimed by them
under the provisions of act No "a OF the acts
OF 1875, which shall be considered in said suit
as non-existing null and void, and no claim
i'll favor OF said company shall be considered
as ilowing from said act, Or any certificate
hereunder.
Language could not make 1t palmer, that
1877 was to refer the claimed rights of the
Leyee Company to the courts for adiudca-
ton under the laws as they stood. True, the
act Of 1877 provided, that in the event ildg-
ment should be rendered against the State Of
Louisiana in favor Of said company, the same
shall be liquidated and paid as follows" =
But that act also provided for the COntin-
gency OF no judgment being rendered against
the State, but one simply against the fund,
for the act specially declares that all levee
taxes heretofore assessed are herebyset apart
as a special fund for the payment, according
to the provisions Of this act, of such iudg-
ment as may be rendered in favor of the com
pany. The terms Of the act contemplated the
possibility Of the non-rendtlon Of the judg-
ment against the State, and provided for that
contingency by declaring that the taxes
should be specially set apart to pay ''such
judgment" as may be rendered against the
fund. The act made the institution of the
suit by the Levee Company under it's provi-
sions ali acceptance OF its terms, and by it
they are concluded.
The act of 1877, we think, was an act OF
compromise by which the Levee Company
was authorized to institute suit for the
liquidation and ascertaipment of the amount
OF their claims, whether against the State or
against the fund, with a provision for the is
suance OF bonds If the claim was decided for
vOrably to be enc against the State with a
provision for the payment Of the amount as
certained to be due out Of the fund, IL only a
claim against the fund. This conclusion Is |
a solution OF the third inquiry, which we
in commencing this opinion.
We do not consider that although the Levee |
Company was found to have no claim against |
the State, such conclusion should have en-
titled the dismissal Of their suit, as we CON |
slider the purpose Of the act OF 1877 was the |
fixing OF the amount which they were entitled |
to claim, whether against the State or against |
the fund. In this view we think the iudg- |
ment OF the lower court erroneous We will. |
amend it in that particular.
1t Is therefore ordered, adjudged and de-
creed that the judgment of the lower court, |
Ia SO far as 1t dismisses the suit Of the Levee |
Company, be and the same is hereby re- |
yersed and proceeding to render such judg-
ment as should have been rendered by the |
lower court, it is ordered, adiudged aud de-
creed that the Louisiana Levee Company be |
recognized as having claim against the |
und created by the levee taxes heretofore |
assessed under the provisions OF the various |
avs creating and amending the power Of the !
Levee Company, and specially provided for |
n section Of act No. 139 of 1877, approved |
Nay 9, 1877, tor the following sums:
One million and nine thousand and
ninety 67-100 dollars. due up
to June IS, 1877 .-,....-.... -. 81 0G9 096 81