The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-01-04
JUDGE BILLINGs's DECISION.

1
The very able and exhaustive decision rem
dered yesterday by Judge Billings sitting In
| the Circuit Court OF the United States In the
| case OF j. John Elliott 81 ais. VS.. Francis L.
| Nichols 1t aIs Will be found elsewhere In the
| DEMOCRAT this morning, and IL worthy Of a
close and studious perusal. The refusal OF
the application for an injunction asked for by
| the bondholders against the Governor. Treas
urer and Auditor of the State Ito compel
them 10 pay certain moneys now In the State
treasury to the holders Of the State consols,
and to prevent the diversion, for any other
| purpose of the funds arising from the tax
| levied under the constitution OF the State for
| the payment OF those bonds and their inter-
| est couponsl will be d severe blow TO those
| who have held the opinion that the United
States courts had the power to compel the
State to execute the provisions of the funding
act and the amendments to the constitution
adopted In conformity Herewith.
| Judge Billings argues the questions in
volved very deliberately, and cites the case of
| McCauley vs.. Kellogg as an exact counter
part In all its leading features to The present
| case, and holds with Judge Woods that the
| executive officers OF q sovereign State cannot
be coeroed into the performance of their
duties under the laws of the State.
30 do So said Judge Woods "would be
to substitute this court for the executive OH
GERS Of the State, to supplant their views OF
duty and the obligations imposed upon them
by their official oath. by the discretion of this
court and Its official oath. in other words, 1t
would be an undertaking on the part OF this
court to administer the State Government"
IF suit like this can be sustained, then
{ he eleventh amendment to the constitution
Is waste paper" In discussing the point as
to whether the State had submitted itself to
DO sued by virtue Of the constitutional amend
ment OF 1874. Judge Billings held that the
provisions OF the amendment did not give
permission to tho Circuit Court of the United
States to take jurisdiction In suit brought
against the State by citizens Of another State.
The amendment, In his opinion, was intended
to remove tho doubt entertained as to the
Legislatures power to levy tax well nigh
In perpetuty," and was directed Exclusively
to the confirmation Of this continual annual
tax, the prevention Of the possibility of Its
repeal or being declared Invalid" to secure
the creditors rights from interference on the
part Of the Legislature, and to enable them
to employ the processes OF the courts In aid
Of the levy and collection Of the tax
For these purposes the Judge thinks the
words of the amendment are adequate but
he holds that they ARE inadequate TO convey
q permission to bring before the courts
sovereign State or to authorize the courts by
bill In equity to administer, for an unlimited
term of years, the finances of the State"
1t is not possible to do justice to this deci- |
sion in the limits Of this article, and all those
! Interested In the matter will, Of course, read
the opinion itself, which not only exhausts |
t he subject, but Is written In clear and |
vi gorous style, which renders 1t exceedingly |
The bondhoders will he wise II they &C
cept this defeat as definitely settling the
question raised by them In this suit They
have feiled In their effort to coerce the State
to do that which the people have In solemn
convention declared their inability to per-
form. and though they may continue the
struggle they will find that the process OF
20 mpulsion Is not an effective one and that
heir true policy Is to come forward, accept
,he situation and trust to the people of Lou
81 ana to do them full justice in the future,
" hen they have recuperated from the dam
lgi Dg and almost ruinous effects Of the pro-
oDged civil war waged against them during
he era Of reconstruction by carpet-bag and
lsurping governments.
The DEMOCRAT has always warned them OF
heir certain defeat before the courts, and they
AVE found that our views were based on
ound doctrine. Let them take our advice
low, earnestly rendered, and cease their use
ess struggle against the inevitable. A pa
life policy will tend much more certainly to
ppreciate their bonds than combined hos
lie attitude. They should have the good
ense to see that the State In Its own interest
will be impelled to do everything possible to
improve the value Of It's bonds so soon as it
as had time to recuperate and get upon its
truggle can only engender q bitter feeling,
7hich will not result In any good to them
whatever.
Let them come forward, accept the proffer
made them by our impoverished people and ,
hey will be In a much better position to ask
recognition OF their claims than while they
re attempting to coerce the State to perform ,
IMPOSSIBLE things. A policy Of peace and .
future will do more to advance :
heir interests than keeping up hopeless
yarfare In the courts, to obtain the 81 mills ]
TX and the Z per cent Interest.
BDIs0N's TRIUMPH. {