Louisiana capitolian., 1881-11-05
AN EXTRA SESSION.
N, O. Democrat.

In considering tbs question OF an
extra session, the Democrat has not
been unmindfnl Of the grave embar-
rassments which beset the State gov
ernment; and in calling attention to
the difficulties in the way of securing
legislative relief, we have distinctly
disclaimed any desire to oppose the
measure, if it could be demonstrated
that relief was to be had.
It seemed quite clear that no laws
giving general relief could be passed
within the fifteen working days de-
signated by the constitution, and it
did not seem wise or necessary to in
eur the expense Of an extra session
in order to save the officers of the gov
eminent from a temporary inconve-
nience. IF it be admitted, that re-
venue bill cannot be passed within
the time allotted, owing to the vexa-
tious questions connected with this
subject then it shows that the utmost
measure of relief to be expected would
be the passage of the appropriation
bill, which would benefit the consti-
tutional officers and provide for the
expenses of the General. Assembly,
bat could do nothing substantial for
the public institutions of the State,
which really require aid more than
the officials.
Until % new revenue bill isadopted
the general fund is inadequate for the
payment OF the expenses of the State
government. This is evidenced by
the fact that the unpaid general fund
warrants Of 1880 amount to 1896 $685.
As, and the unpaid warrants Of the
same class for 1881 amount to 1884,
600. Here we have total of unpaid
warrants for the two years of $780,
535.4G. If the remitted interest fund
of 1906, 900 was applied to the pay
ment of these warrants there would
remain deficit to date of $3.50, ,535.46.
Hence the failure Of an extra session
to amend the revenue law would sim
ply add to the burden of expenses.
A mere appropriation in excess of
the revenue would be of no practical
value to the State iDstitutionsiD view
of the provisions of act No. 2 of 1880,
making legislative and constitutional
warrants payable by preference, and
in view of the decision of the Supreme
Court of the State to the same effect
in the case of Collins VS.. Treasurer,
.32 Annual.
Gov. McEnery's action in declining
to call an extra session under such
conditions has undoubtedly met pub
lie appreciation, but there are other
questions touching this matter which
will, no doubt, receive his careful
consideration, and which may have
all important bearing upon his de-
sion. |
The constitution does not prohibit |
tie taking up of unfinished business
atl second session of the same Ieg- |
islture. II is contrary to rule or Gus
tor, but this rule or custom may be |
abbgated by the adoption of bill or
Jolt resolution which would enable |
the Legislature to pass necessary |
meaures at second called session
by evoting all the time to essential
que:ions.
NJ Farmer, of 0uachita, introduce
ed abill last session to remedy this
ditiiolty, but it failed to pass.
Aubject ofgreater magnitude than
any tthose presented by the adyo-
cates)f an extra session, claims the
attenfon of the Executive in the
shaptof the opinion of some of the
best igal minds of the State, con-
curre in by the Attorney General
AMI tie Governor, we believe, that |
una the existing revenue act, tax
collectors cannot sell property for
delinquent taxes, say of 1880 or 1881,
wihout .jeopardizing the States right
to'ollect back taxes. In other words
tht purchaser Of property for the
taSs of 1880, under the revenue bill
void acquire tie property free from
all ack taxes.
IL. 20