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

4N
60 -----
consideration OF the Supreme Court ~ The
State. refer, sir, to tic case Of Wilson VI.
case the plaintiff SUED the city Of Shrayeport
upon seven bonds of $500 each. These bonds
had been issued In Dart payment Of stock
bought nv the eitv III a rnsiiuht enmnanv
CURED them ID good ID faith for "a 4
valid consideration and before maturity.
Tie defense was that thew had heen iss,1ed
without authority and being 10 issued. were
absolutely null and void. The Judgment in
the lower courts vas ID favor 81 plaintiff and
the city appealed The plaintiff depended
upon an ordinance providing for the issue 81
$15O,OOD In bonds OF $4,000 each. 100 redeem-
able in five, 100 In ten and 100 in fifteen years,
bearing annual interest Transferable jU III.
guishment Of. these bonds. $4,000 each wear ,sal
was to u set aside from wharf revenues, this
to constitute q sinking fund, Later this or
dinance was amended 90 as to set aside $4,000
from the annual taxes Of the city, IN lieu Of
clpal defense was upon act No. 1853 of 1866,
section 4, declaring: 1.-THE police iuries Of
the several parishes and The constituted
authorities of the Incorporated towns
and cities OF the State, shall hot have power
without fully providing In the ordinance Gre
atinr the debt tie meals Of paving the princi-
nal and interest of the debt so created"
Upon this defense the Supreme Court de-
clared the following IA being the benefits to
the people Contemplated By this provision ::
"W hat an immensely Of extravagange. cor
r,1ntion. wastefuInpss unnecessary and
erfevously burdpnsome taxation, moral
and financial ruin might have been spared to
the people of Louisiana Ii this wise law had
been observed and enforced. CORPORATIONS.
like individuals, may imagine they require
many things which really can be dispensed
with, or the enjoyment Of which may be- dis
pensed with until they have the means to
but one and the other must learn
to live within their means and re-
sources, and those who fail to observe this
rule of common sense and common interest,
it Is 10 wonder that they become hopeless
bankrupts.' Further on the court adds:
with money property may De acquired upon
advantageous terms, but those who have not
the money should wait until they have, or
use their credit only, when the means Of
meeting the debt at maturity are pro-
vided and are certain. The Leglsla-
tnre meant to compel the observance
Of this much Of honesty BY municipal corpora
tions 1t prohibited the contracting OF debts
by them without providing for the payment
q. principal and interest IN the ordinance
wherein III IS created. We shall enforce
and occasion may require. Further on
the court examines into the adequacy
Of the provisions made. In their reasoning
they satisfy themselves that these pro-
fore declare the bonds issued were issued
without legal warrant or authority. They
were issued in contempt and fragrant viola
ton OF sections and ., act No. 1853 Of 1866 q
prohibitory law; they are not obligations
which can be enforced Ia judicial tribune
they are absolute utilities"
And in a still later case, which we find re-
ported at so A., 81 refer to Lord Cecil ut ai.
VS.. Board Of Liquidation-we find, Ia the
opinion Of Associate Justice Mari, a similar
declaration brought home to article Ill Of the
constitution He says: "But, il this security
had been sufficient to Indemnify the State,
what provision is made i'm the act OF adequate
ways and means to enable the State to pay
one single dollar OF this debt to the holders
of the bonds? Absolutely none. The Legis-
lature simply ignored Article iii 81 liz Con c
stltution and violated It's positive iDiunctions.
There can be but one consequences, it Is ine-
yitable; the act was ultra vtrgs and is VOID.
And the bonds, having been issued without
the authority Of law, in violation Of the or
Ranic law, are absolutely void, and impose no
obligation, legal or moral upon the State
Mr. President, could language be more
forcibIe or precise? Can an authority be
more close or pertinent to the issue? Now,
sir, we have in our support the opinions OF
are not Its judges abused for their opinions?
Might not address to those high judges the
following language: ooh, ye regulators
sitting In solemn judgment, In the highest
tribunal Of an honest State, Come, down
from your high position and join hands with
the raseally majority cf this committee.
And you, Mr.. Ogden, Attorney General Of q
great State, who defended the cause against
Lord Cecil, how can you have been so dead to
oil the Instincts Of honor and manhood as to
navigation bonds!"
Now, sir, let US turn to the minority report