The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-14
|, the principal obligation is therefore

Now, | assert as universal principles not
susceptible Of successful controversy, that
any public officer or tribunal over a subject
matter, and It's exercise Is confided to his or
their discretion, the acts SO done are binding
| and valid as to the subject matter. aud indtvid-
| uals will not be disturbed collateraly for
anything done In the exercise Of that dis
erection, within the power and authority con-
| ferred. The only question which can arise
between an individual claiming right under
the acts done, and the public or any pthel
person denying their validity are po,rer lii the
officer and fraud in the party. 6 Peters 1898
| 15dp 377; do Cos. 25 Miss. 770-2; Vattel's Law
| OF Nations 227.
Whoever, therefore, undertakes to deal
with party purportinng to contract IN the
authority to bind the State according to the
constitution and laws Of the same.
And when once the contract has been made
by lawful authority the right Of the creditor
| becomes indefeasible. Whether the money
borrowed has been turned to the advantage
Of the State Or squandefed In foolish expenses
Is no concera Of the person who has lost 1t
he has entrusted the nation with his property
and the nation Ia bound to restore It to him
again. 1t Is SO much the worse Tor her Il she
has committed the management OF her affairs
to improper hands.
| Under the genius Of our complex govern
ments It has long been admitted that a State
| Legislature has power over OIL SUBJECTS where
1t Is not limited by constitutional provision
in this 1t Is the reverse OF the power OF Con
gress, under the constitution Of the United
States where all power Is denied except that
granted by the instrument itself.
The power to contract debts by the Leglsla-
ture for the service of the State, therefore, lie
I'll Inherent power, subject only to the re,
strictions found In the constitution. 16 Wal
lace 36; 81 A. 147; IL A. 1885, 554. Indeed, the
very terms Of the restriction coneede the
power by necessary implication.
- trfr
has only to inquire into the power Of the Off
GERS OF the government to issue them; In
other words, whether acts Of the Legislature
authorized the issuance, and whether the is-
sues followed the terms of the several acts
and whether there Is In the acts any Infringe
ment OF the provisions of the constitution
When these conditions unite, the issue Of
bonds is bidlng upon the State and valid.
do not understand any one as questioning
the passage Of laws authorizing the issues
funded, nor that In the issuance OF such bonds
the requirements Of the acts were followed
/, Of course, do not include herein such bonds
as have been declared void by the Supreme
Court.
The only Issue for discussion then, Is
whether the several acts made adequate
provision" for payment of the interest and
principal within the constitutional intend
ment.
Unless the adequacy Of the ways and means
to be provided under the constitution be left
the absolute sufficieney of the security thus
required to be provided Is turned into q limi-
tation Of the obligation Of the State, and that
any fortuitous circumstance by which the
security was destroyed, though ample at the
passage Of the act, might carry the nullity OF
an obligation till then held perfect. See 20
Annual, D. 9s7.
Such never could have been the purpose of
the constitutional limit imposed Careful re-
flexion Will suggest the intent Of this to be
fhotI
vision for Its redemption. Since the Legfsla-
ture IL the sole arbiter as to the proprfety OF
contracting the debt and of measuring the
ability Of the property OF the State to bear it
ct the time Of contracting, It follows that 1t
must also lie within Its discretion to declare
as between the State and the creditor, what
Is adequate provision" and that decision is
final
Any other theory would leave the validity
OF d contract to be determined by subsequent
events totally foreign to the contract Itself.
An Illustration OF which Is to be found In the
history Of the jackson and ppelotlsas Rail-
road bonds. The State subscribed to the
stock Of these roads, which Is to be paid in State
bonds, the payment whereof was secured by
the pledge OF the stock and the revenues de-
rived therefrom. With the success OF the com
panfes the adequacy of this provision would
have been ample. As it is the war and eonse-
quent appropriation Of the greater part Of
the rolling stock Of both these companies, and
to utter ruin. TO say that these misfortunes, in
which the State as a stakeholder has only
shared In common with others, absOlve her
from her obligations. Is to invoke results I'M
warranted by any known rules regulating con-
tracts, either OF States or individuals
1t Is worthy OF remark here that the State
has absolutely received Sal 900 for the sale
Of her stock In the jackson Railroad Com
pany.
am not left to my own suggestions in this
81 TIA,
given to this provision. III the Morris Ranger
vs. City OF New Orleans case the court says:
The city of New Orleans occupies the iden-
tical position of the State in reference to it's
creditors. the holders Of Its bonds issued
also in aid Of the Jackson Railroad. Its char
adequate provision for their payment, pre-
cisely as the constitution limits the power of
the Legislature In this important particular.
The provision made for the REDEMPTION of its
State-a pledge of its subscribed stock
which, like the State, 1t sold, and coffered the
proceeds.
Upon the plea Of inadequacy Of provision
for payment Of the bonds the court say. 'The
city, by the terms Of the bonds was primarily
liable, and nothing In the language OF the act
in any respect affects its primary liability.
The bOndholder is not compelled to look to
the security, but may proceed directly against
the city without regard to it. And
even III Inc DOuuHOlieFS uhu Dteu required TO
look for payment of the bonds only to the
revenues and proceeds Of the stock, it comes
with bad grace from the city, which evinces
an insensibility to its obligations, to allege
exception from liability, after its authorities
have sold the stock and diverted the proceeds
to other uses
Turning now to the issue Of bonds known
as the levee bonds, we learn that In 1865, IN
der act No IS, 100000 In bonds were arl-
thorized to build levees;. to secure their pay
ment fall the proceeds of the sale OF the pub
lie or swamp lands belonging to the State are
pledged Recurrence to the quantity and
demand Of such lands, as they then existed,
tion that the proceeds from their sale would
be ample to pay these bonds. In any event,
what have said about the adequacy of the
provision being matter OF legislative discre-
ton, applies.
And our own court has iudicially construed
the expression found In the constitution, when
the question was thus stated and answered:
Has the Legislature complied with the con-
stitutional requirement, Of providing in the
law creating this debt adequate ways and
means for the payment Of the current interest
and Of the principal when 1t shall have be-