The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-16

Years five and half mills of the revenue O
the State derived from taxation for the pay
ment Of the seven per cent interest on the
/ bonds.
i hold that the obligation has no such scope
that neither the Legislature nor the const
| tuition could create such n contract which
was binding on subseqgept Legislatures
and covered by the guarantees" of the Fedora
constitution, against impairing contracts
that the appropriation by the act Of the Leg
islature Of 1874 of five and q half mills to the
payment Of the seven per cent in
| terest ts mere Legislative act, which may
| DO repealed and amended by any subsequent
Legislature In the exercise OF that sovereign
power which Is inherent In oil legislatures
| under our representation system, Of absolute
and inaleDable control of the revenues Of the
state and OF the taxation OF the people.
II such q contract was created by the Legis-
lature Of 1874, 1t was unconstitutional and
| invalid, because Ii Ia In derogation of this
vital and essential principle 81 our system ot
government; and II created by the cOnstitu-
tinnal amendment, IL has no greater force,
| being mere Legislative and not an organic
| act, and like all Legislative acts, cannot bind
| subsequent legislatures.
| In his zeal to make an impracticable ease
| for the bondholders, Mr.. Semmee has not only
| lost sight OF this cardinal principle In repub-
| lican and representative governments In this
| country and In England, but he has failed TO
read and consider carefully the provision OF
the amendment OF the constitution relating to
ers. II has been long a prevalent error that
this amendment recognized and gave consti-
tutional force and sanction to the provision OF
the funding act fixing the rate OF taxation and
setting aside the same to pay the interest on
the bonds.
BY reference to this amendment IL will be
seen that 1t reads as follows:
"The tax required for The payment Of the
principal and interest Of said bonds shall be
asspssed and collected eneh and every year
tha Ddu CHI "a mid priD ri fnJ
interest, and the proceeds shall be paid by the
Treasurer of the State to the holders OF said
bonds as tho principal and interest OF the
same shall fall due, and no further legisla-
tion or appropriation shall be requisite for
the said assessment and collection, and for
such payment from the treasury
The tax required Required 10y whom, I'm
posed and fixed by whom2 What authority
can fix, regulate and impose taxation but the
Legislature, tho representatives OF the peo-
ple2
The Legislature Of 1874 fixed this rate ut 81
mills. and this Is required tn be set aside and
IL appropriated to the interest of the bonds.
The Legislature Of 1880 may fix this rate at
1 or q mills, aud that becomes thenceforth.
until changed by another Legislature, the
atftttffft required IN hn set aside
SO it Is q grave and hurtful error to assume
that the obligation to assess and collect five
and half mills for forty years for the pay
ment of the interest of the consols Is part OF
the contract with the holders of their bonds.
and that 1T would be a fruitless reputation to
abolish or reduce that rate of taxation. 1t Is
a hurtful error because 1t will prevent that
compromise and adjustment which alone will
secure the bondholders for eventual payment
and prevent an involuntary reputation.
The insstance of the bondholders on this
high rate of taxation; the suggestion of judi
cial enforcement of this debIand as n part of
tho contract, will drive the taxpayers to the
very extreme OF what Is called Tepudiation
The menace OF an appeal to the judiciary TO
enforce such demand, besides its vanity and
hopessness, is well calculated to aggravate
this growing spirit of resistance to an exor-
bitalit taxation to pay old debts.
The suggestion by Mr. Semmes that there are
such judicial remedies to enforce even valid
obligations OF aState may be disposed OF by
to the quotations which your able, |
copious and at rare intervals, witty cores.
pendent ID: q. L.. has given from Daniel
Webster's letter In 1889 to Barring Bros, |
In this letter, Mr.. Webster says that
1T has been said that the Statas cannot be |
sued on these bonds. But neither could the
United states be sued; nor. | suppose. the
the power OF suing give to tho creditors, prob |
ably. any substantial additional security. The /
solemn obligation of government. arising on I
lis own acknowledged bond. would not be on I
mn ced by Judgment rendered on such bond |
IL II either could not or would not make pro-
vision for paying the bond. H. Is not probable
hat IT could, or would make provision for salts
lying the judgment"
Mr.. Webster further adds that thesecurity
'or the payment Of the State debts rests on
their pledged faith and their ability to pay
To show their ability, he refers to their large
resources and rapid progress and develop
ment. These were the limitations which this
great jurist imposed on the liability of the
State Tor its debts. lie did not believe that
hey would violate their faith by refusing Co
pay when they were able. But In either case
IF such violation or inability there was no
judicial power to compel them to pay.
Herein the issue Is made up. Daniel
Webster vs. 7. J. Semmes and I'D. q. L."
To which authority, Ii Webster's opinion on
such subject needed any confirmation, | add
that of Judge Wood of the United States Cir
cult Court III Macaulay vs. Kellogg 2 Wood,
%. This was suit by injunction To prohibit
The State officers from executing the pro-
visions OF the funding act. Judge Wood said
This may be done In the case of the officers
Of municipal corporations, but the sovereign
power OF State cannot be so cover ed
10 do SO would be to substitute this court
Tor the executive officers OF the State, to sup
plant their views OF duty and the obligations
supposed upon them by their official oath by
rhe discretion of this court and It's official
oath. In other words, 1t would be an under
,aklng upon the part OF this court to admin
ster the State government This the court
has no power and no inclination to do. 1t Is
! suit TO enforce contract OF the State to
pay money. Ii a suit like this can be sus-
,ained, then the eleventh amendment to the
constitution Of the United States is waste
paper"
will not burden your columns with the
citations which might be arrayed
% the same point. The new theory preached
It tho North by some ingenious attorney,
hat, through the original jurisdiction of the
supreme Court the States might be sued and
to pay their obligations, has made
.wo converts hereto W.T.: Mr.. Semmes
md your voumInous correspondent, ID. G.
i. II is no reflection upon these two
learned gentlemen to say that such an enter
prise ~ they propose is quito characteristic
IL their professional bodness and of their
prolllcness In inventing legal expedients and
3oDhsms. 1t will suffice to dispose Of so wild
l theory to say that 1t would require revo-
luton to carry 1t into effect and would con-
vert our confederate system into an oligarchy,
with nine judges to administer the govern
ments Of the States, and with the President :
IS their bailiff or high sheriff.
Such theories may serve as di6iciles Rugtg
to amuse legal minds They ought not to be
into the discussion of political
and practical question like this we have now
under consideration.
1t is far better counsel to the bondholders
and to the taxpayerSi that they should com