The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-12

1eo 4hey are created; and the creditor OF b
Nesn,a Mil is bound to see that the. contract
gxg,,gstion of which he claims the benefit iB
HIM Tie power which the eorp2praI1ln,n may
!la its ahape Of d negotiable instrument. 0r
I'M ssas Iacguired M good faith for uaJid
fNhtgsmraiion before maturity, IN no manner
sus ne pore, Of the corporation or giues
garee or validity II ats unauthorized
And later, ii the case ot Lord
no. Mr.. Justice Mari held: "The
h,eating to commercial paper, bills Of
ia It'll nrse and promissory notes by which the
lep earf holder for value, before maturity, is
llssetsd against equities and defenses which
Hi have been available between the origi-
Extracting parties, ls not applicable
IN hplders of State bonds or municipal
eIsas Every one who purchases State bonds
eo gs.s that they pulport to have been issued
esspflle of dele ated authority; and that
qas validity Us obligations III the State or Of
!asm,nieipal corporation depends upon the
.ssse and extent OF the power granted by
sH Gould authorities he more close, con-
asar emphatie2
h sM therefore,, the bonded obligations Or this
B5b ire not negotiable instruments, they
sssin open, In all hands, to every valid de-
.S n The State. And II q valid one pre-
.ssss5 itself how do gentlemen justify them
,sss Id casting 1t away? Were they per-
.saily confronted with huge demands OF q
ksndtileDt or illegal character, or with non
sssaiabie Instruments, without considera-
I'M Of with o consideration failed, would
~ oot avail themselves OF such defenses lii
&s courts Of the country? Is 1t, therefore,
ssaat. while representing the people, to adj
s1ts one theory, while for themselves they
ssId practice another? Is II honest to fasten
~ the people d gigantic debt, II that debt
nm binding upon themp He who takes
IsI Il not lawfully his due does dishonest
I'M are not all who facilitate the taking
sstprs In the dishonesty Let us now pass
sthe validity Of the defense pointed out by
3enajority report. The theory OF free gov
ssipsnt, as, distinguished from despo-
sss u that the majority. rules. but
NH with certain well defined limits.
s.a republics have their constitutions,
Hill are the charters Of right In favor
Il aInorities against majorities, in favor
itne Individual against the State, In favor
N the people against the government. In
INV restrictive clause the people and every
ssigidual has vested right. The benefits
aasht to BE- conferred the he rights sought to
s W ''o e any body of them, Of BIS to
M glngle Individual and this either directly
Indirectly. Among the valuable consti-
EtInnal restrictions Of the past In this State,
M those imposed by article III, constitution
n. lIBS Wl1iGIl is UuSl Gill Gopiti til6
sNdIug constitutions Of 1864 and 1862. 1t
=Sefs as follows: Whenever the General
Sslernbly shall contract n debt exceeding in
amount the sum Of 100000, unless In case Of
MI, to Tepel invasion, or suppress insurrec-
tuB, Ii shall, In the act creating the debt, pro-
HID adequate ways and means for the pay
Erp1t of the current interest and Of the prin-
aual, when the same shall become due" etc.
u, therefore, the debts thrown out by the
fnliurity report are in contravention OF this
5ShlFSIon, they are null. Here was reStric-
EHtp clanse of D. character most valuable to
E&eDeople. Tt should present an effective bar
" It'd reckless creation OF debts and the con-
Feuunf1t embarrassment of the government
flna excessive taxation OF the people. 1t was
fbY the ability OF the people to pay them.
ENhan legislature Is forced to face the prob
EjHa uf providing the means Of paying the
|1ebls " creates, 1t Is forced to hesitate and
|lsn to desist, IL the means be not at its dis
|Doal, Or II the people be- already taxed to
ha extent Of endurance. The clear operation
would BIZ to force abStensiOn from debt, unless
I IA people could bear taxation, not only
|hpay the interest," but to create sinking
Hhhl, year by year. Legislatures which,
ENiith Micawber-like spirit, would otherwise
E3lsn d multitude OF notes, hoping for some
|king to turn up, thus leaving q legacy Of
|3fplble and misery to succeeding generations,
HABAfU HB ltIEIIGu JGulu GHpIGi3SlIk tllt'tI OWh
Eleheratinn and constituents. Similarly is IL
enlcHlated to check corruption and leglsla-
|ass dishonesty. Had this wholesome ,estric-
|fnl been honored and Obeyed few OF the debts
INV rejected would have been created, and
|lhllslaIa would not, at this day. have been a
|3ataden State, inhabited by d tax-ridden
|)eaIa. The Supreme Court Of this State. was
E1Hake to the full importance Of this provision
|9dothers similar.
Fl III the Tenth Annual, on page IL, we find the
|leaof Patrick Fox VS.. Thos. SlOo, executor.
2hat case was q judicial declaration OF the
Ealal results following the violation OF the
||llloWlpg clause from the laws governing the
nv of New Orleans: All contracts, for pub
EAlpr other works ordered by said municipal
Ias, shall be given out to the lowest bidder"
n that volume we find the following history
qthe case: Fox, the plaintiff, applied to
asle TO be employed to fill lots,
kH offered to do 1t for sixty-fve
EnB per yard, and be refused to en-
EpT him. Fox repeated THESE visits
kHsral times, and at last told Rawle he had
Nn engaged by the commissary to 90 the
WIZ, upon which Rawle replied, the contract
g ". Illegal. and the amount would not pc
Na by the estate. Nevertheless, upon the
slllell order OF the surveyor, directing Fox
IRaO the work, and In which no price was
|nned, Fox did the filling, and obtained the
E9l1eate OF the Surveyor that the work was
$500 ~ hGSUIuduG5 Will LILO pI0pUA 6ldhC,
2aented q till at the rate OF seventy-five
! Aper cubic yard, and upon refusal OF pay
E@as ss brought this suit, which resulted In q
ment In his favor. The defendant ap-
a, and relied mainly for reversal upon
\ ~ etatute VI 1850 The court held 1.-The
asaule was evidently framed for the purpose
I'M eaeeking municipal extravaganza aud cor
gRRpllon. The clause In question aimed at
S W.! obvious evils, by subjecting municipal
|SSRscts to competition" Again, 1t declares:
4 a MI Incidence to the statute, it was reason
~ aa. te suppose much money would be |
IVY to the public treasury and indi-
E|&aaals protected from oppressive charges.
I Agan: ut was remedial statute, ana
4; elld receive from the courts OF Justice such
4 Wlsideration as will tend to correct the
Sa.se u at which 1t was aimed. Its policy,
aSs II y very plain, must be respected. The
Eaahn has, In this case, In connection with
\ municipal officer, acted in violation OF the
~ ss0alle. There is nothing to show, upon the
4 ~ !, q any municipal officer, any improper
tEaeay 9e, but the omission Of duty IS clear, ana
g DC and the plaintiff are to be considered
~ participants in the violation OF q renae-
IA ,satate. The employment, then. OF
~ \ lplaln,iff was illegal, and Ills claim, based
~ and springing directly from that en-
yMent, cannot be aided IN court OF JUS
mi without disregarding the policy 81 the
M and rendering Its acquisitions futile.
ftSSa NM Is certainly hardships Ia the result,
Essa enriehes the proprietor at the plalntln g
fssnse, but 1t Is q hardship, which however
mmaay and should recommend itself TO tDe