The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-18

know OF owns bond or perhaps ever saw
one. Ihe duty properly belonged to those
i class to be affected by the majority report, to
examine at length and to elaborate The ques-
4 tlon. They have done so, and certainly no
cause has ever been more ably, more eloquentIy
and conscieneiously presented.
My. constituency could not but benefit by
the adoption OF the majority report, and the
conclusions Of the minority would forever
shut them out from the relief they impera-
lively need. And yet well know that were
to raise my voice or cast my ballot in support
Of measure which, in their opinion, or in
mine, would be unlawful or contrary to good
conscience, however depressed may be their
condition. and however burdensome may be
the consequences, they would repudiate my
acI ana pronounce me Tecreant to my trust.
Y My object, Mr.. Chairman, Ia only and sim
/ ply to put upon the record, as briefly as pos
slbiee, some OF the legal reasons which prompt
me to oppose the majority report In It's pres
i emit shape, and which will cause me to cast
my vote against it.
When q few days since, In order to pass In
telliigently on this grave question, ] made
such ON examination Ut 1t as time allowed,
knew not BY what rule or law to be guided in
my investigation. had heard the force OF q
constitutional amendment denied; / had
heard q ratification by 9 legislature freely
elected by the people, held to be OF no effect.
had heard the pledges OF the Democratic
party In 1876 and 1873 declared void. was
| told that sanction by the present government
Of the funding act and the continuation OF the
funding process under the hand Of our pres
ent Governor, could not bind the public con-
science, and was assured that even the ad-
Indications OF the Supreme Court Of the
! United States were powerless to settle the
differences between the State andi Its creditors.
| However, Mr.. Chairman, the majority Of the
committee seem to have no hesitancy in cit
/ ing the decisions of the present Supreme
Court 81 the State and as could not imagine
that they. would recognize their force, when
| In their favor, and deny 1t when against
point. For the purposes OF this statement of
views, do not consider myself called upon
to enter into the argument, which would
prove the validity Of the constitution Of that
tribunal, the lawful derivation Of its powers
and the binding force OF Its judgments. Its
i judges are OF the choosing OF the peoples own
government. It's DEGREES have been heard and
obeyed throughout the commonwealth. Upon
1 them judgment OF death have been affirmed,
| citizens have been deprived of their liberty,
private rights have been adjusted; all have
| bowed to It as before the majesty of the law,
| and tt was reserved To this committee, and to
| 1t alone, to question it's authority and deny
| It's power. Nor, Mr.. Chairman, do purpose
! to refute the assertion that there has been
| an allegiance OF government In Louisiana
since the war. For others have answered.
and done SO eonclusively, that the inevitable
result Of such q wild theory would be the
i Ot
| this body which was called into life and
spoken into power by the government whose
| very being il denied.
| An examination of the decisions Of the
present Supreme Court shows me that five
| series Of bonds declared null BY the commit
| tee have been considered by that court on all
ire points raised blythe committee and declared
valid and binding obligations Of this State.
Mr.. Chairman, not to mention the decisions
OF the Supreme Court OF this State, rendered
nnn al fhel af Htx,
Of some Of these rejected bonds, find the
following bonds adjudicated upon by the
present court:
Bonds in favor of the Consolidated Associa-
Sons VS.. Board OF Liquidation 80 An, b. 1853
And here may be pardoned to express regret
that while the committee quotes the case of
State ex rel. New Orleans Pacific Railroad
Company vs: j. I. Nichols ct al., 80 An. $50,
In support OF its opinion that this series Is
invalid, it failed to inform us that the same
court revised its opinion and overruled its
former Judgment IN the case just cited.
AS to the bonds In favor Of the Citizens
| Bank, as is we'll known they form no part of
the consolidated bonds, the liability OF the
State for their payment being only contin-
gent
The bonds of the New Orleans, jackson
and Great Northern Railroad Company.
which the committees rejects, were declared
valid and constitutional by the present court
In the recent case OF Sterry vs. Board of Lii
quotation. 81 An, 36.
The bonds OF the Baton Rouge, Crosse Tete
and Opelousas Railroad, rejected by the COM
mittee, were declared valid by the present
court in the case Of Hamlin ct AL vs. Board
OF Liquidation. 30 An, 443.
The levee bonds were declared valid by the
present court in the case Of State ex rel For
stall vs.. Board OF Liquidation. IS An, $50.
AS to the Bout and Crocodile Navigation
Company, they were annulled by the present
Supreme Court and never funded.
Lord Cecil VS.. Board OF Liquidation. 80
An, p. 81.
The bonds Of the New Orleans, Mobile and
Chattanooga Railroad were declared fraudu-
lent by the late Supreme Bench, III IS An, 393
and were not funded, with the exception of
about $3.50. 600, issued for the part of the road
completed to DonaIdsonville.
The bonds OF the Mississippi and Mexican
Gulf Ship Canal Company have recently been
annulled BY the present Supreme Court In the
case OF New York Guaranty and Indemnity
Company VS.. Board OF Liquidation.
Mr.. Chairman, we are called upon by the
com mittee to declare all these bonds, recog-
nized by our Supreme Court, not only illegal,
but also Fraudulent See line 30 of ordinance
proposed. And the main ground on which
this is pressed is that these bonds, especially
those ante betIlsns, are unconstitutional under
article Ill OF the constitution of 1862, which
prescrlbes that whenever the Legislature
shall contract 9 debt exceeding 100000 they
shall provide adequate ways and means for
Mi. Chairman, presume we ara all ae-
quainted with the fact that one Of the chief
objects Of convoking the Convention Of 1862
was to allow the State to grant its aid to
works OF internal improvements considered
to be Of great public interest. ] confess it
would require great proof to convince me
that, for instance, In the cases of the jack
son son kail IH bonds, the ,Opelousas and
Baton Rouge and Crosse Tete Railroad
bonds, the Vicksburg, Shreveport and
Texas Railroad bonds-all issued by
the first Legislature assembled under the
constitution Of 1852 the General Assembly,
with the new constitution before them, fresh
from the hands Of It's trainers, should have
inaugurated the new power granted to them
by its abuse and violation, and this at a time
when the resources OF the State were almost
boundless, and the Legislature had its choice
OF ways and means. But, aside from this,
l think it Is demonstrable that the "ways
and means We're adequate, and, again, that
the adequacy was within the discretion of the
Legislature.
In the acts issuing the bonds, which the
ton 1n1V L