St. Landry democrat., 1883-05-19


-.
THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT.
The debt ordinance Of the constitu-
tion adopted in 1879, provides that hold
ers of State bonds who accept new
bonds at the rate of seventy-fve cents
on the dollar, shall receive interest on
the same at the rate of four per cent
and those who will not consent to scale
their bonds shall receive only two per
cent interest for five years, three per
interest for fifteen years, and after
wards four per cent interest. Here we
have injustice to start with, to those
who accept the terms offered and re-
duce their claims, as the following il
lnstration will show: A and B each
own a State bond of $1,000. A scales
his bond to $3.50; the interest on this
for five pears at four per cent is $3.50,
which added to the principal makes
5000. B refuses to agree to the propo-
sition of the State to reduce his bond,
and gets two per cent per annum for
iveyears which gives 500 interest, and
this added to the principal of $1,000
makes $1100-which is 5000 more than
A receives. The debt ordinance there
fore of the constitution offers a pre-
MUM against scaling the debt.
But some of the bondholders did not
only decline to scale their bonds, but
they refused to accept the other terms
offered, and sued for the entire interest
at the rate of seven per cent called for
by their bonds before the adoption of the
constitution of 1879. These cases have
recently been decided by the United
States Supreme Court against the bond
holders, and they are compelled to ac-
cept the terms set forth in the debt or
dinance of the constitution of 1879.
We have shown above, that it is not
to the interest of these defeated bond
holders to scale their bonds to seventy
five cents on the dollar, as the original
bond amounts to more at twoeper cent
interest in five years, than the scaled
bond does at four per cent during the
same time.
Now the legislature of the State, at
the regular session Of 1882, passed an
act to submit another debt ordinance
as an amendment to the constitution.
to be voted on at the general election
next year. It changes the rates of in
terest, and gives the bondholders who
refused to scale their bonds; who re-
fused the other terms fixed at two per
cent for five years, three per cent for
fifteen years, and four per cent there
after /; and who sued for the original in
terest of seven per cent, and who have
been defeated in their demands by a
Judgment of the United States Supreme
Court-why, it gives them two per cent
interest for five years from January 1st,
1880, and four per cent thereafter, leay-
ing out the three per cent for fifteen
years. This is increased injustice to
the bondholders who scaled their
bonds. The first debt ordinance which
is now part of the constitution is un-
just this proposed amendment is still |
more so. The proper amendment to
submit to the people is one to compel |
these bondholders to scale their bonds,
that all may be on the same footing.
Besides, the State has been put to con-
expense to defend these suits
Of n-compromising bondholders.
and now we have the still further ex-
pense of voting on an amend
ment to the constitution which is plain
~ for their benefit, and against the in
terests Of the people. There is but one
reasonable and sensible thing for the |
people to do, and that is, to defeat this
proposed amendment by very "large
One night lately middle-aged man
asked the sergeant at Paris police sta
ton to arrest him because he was ut
terly destitute. He described himself |
as Baron Won R. and gave us his
place Of domicil Vienna. Papers
proved that he spoke the truth. He
had held an important post, which he
was compelled to resign on account of |
a scandal. Then he took to Baden and