New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-06-30
THE LOUISIANA BOND CASES,
! REVIEW. OF THE SUPREME COURT
DECISION

OF THE DISSENTING OPINIONS OF JUSTICES
FIELD ASr HARLAN.
70 ne Bdftor OF TIE Trfbane. w
SrR :~Qs the same day that the United States
rupremc Court adudged that the Virginia act Of jan
nary 1882 did impair the obligation Of the contract
of 1871 the Court rendered the Louisiana bonds
eases still important decision. because far
reaching In its consequences In the Virginia bonds
cases was decided that contract with State is not
Impaired either by law postponing indefinitely the
tme for its performance by law substituting for
prompt and certain remedy for its enforcement One not
worth pursuing But under the decison in the Louis
lana bonds cases, mandate of the Federal Conshu
ton IL enforceable within the limits Of any State,
except SO far ~ the Constitution laws of the State
may permit brief statement OF the grounds OF that
Decision viii make this clearly appear.
Under the Louisiana act Of 1874 the State issued her
consolidated bonds" bearing per cent interest to the
en ant Of 00e 000 For the payment Of the prnc-
pal OF those PONDS the oct provided eop-
unuing annual tax 6ie mills the dollar the
sessed value Of all property In the State and got
apart appropriated the proceeds Of this tax to that
purpose and matter and these provisions were EN-
bodied express terms in the state Constitution Of the
same year. But the Constitution OF 1879 contained
ordinance scaling the interest these bonds
down TO per cent and Offering the holders
sew ponds lieu Of those they held ct the rate Of rs
cents the dollar Of the amount Of the old BOMBS TO
Bear tue rate of per cent limiting the State
AK for all purposes whatever" to mills the dollar;
coupons
January $780, and directing the interest taxes col
sced to meet them TO DO transferred to defray the
expenses Of the State Government" g.
The PLAINTIFF In both those holders OF
soldated bonds, and tho desndsnts those State
uoers whose duty was under the act under the
Constitution Of 1874 levy the directed In
that se and pay Its proceeds to the bondhold
era they having refused to perform this duty tho
mound that they were prohibited from doing BY
debt ordinance One of them was an equity suit In the
United States Circuit Court for tho Eastern District OF
Lsussna praying that tile defendants be restrained from
executing the provisions Of the debt ordinance far
II impaired the contract in the set of 1874 The other
emo mandamus suit begun In the proper State court
asking thst the defendants be compelled to perform
vAe ministerial duty imposed upon them BY that act Of
evyiag the tax and Of applying its proceeds, also
thess Of the same tax previously lsvisd remaining in
Vher hands, the discharge of the interest due tho
bsnds and retirement Of tho principal provided In
~ est This suit afterward removed to the
United States Circuit Court That Court having refused
relief sought In both tho they were brought
up the United States supreme Court and the oth
Of March. 1885, that Court affirmed both the Judgments.
thss sanctloning the refusals In the Court below.
The opinion Of the Supreme Court was delivered BY
Chisf Jussce II admits that the not of 1874 was
contrast and, such, proteced against impairment BY
che Federal Constitution II also admits that the con-
tract impaired By the debt ordinance, but IL denies
that the plaintns legally obtain any relief and
the following grounds;
l. That the persons sued being executive officers Of
proceeded against their official capacity the
suts virtually suits against the State which, under
amendment IL Of the Federal Constitution. caunot DO
sued By citiEens =
3 That courts have power to compel State officers
"to contrary to the positive orders Of the State,
whose creatures they and to which they are ult
patey responsible In Law for what they do; "that the
officers owe duty to the State alone
peations with the bondhoders. They can only act as
me Directs them act and hold "a the State al
lows them to hold On this point the opinion otes
authority the English Of the Queen against Lords
Commissioners of the Treasury H. r. Q b.. 387). whero
smandsmus to the Lords Of the Treasury TO compel the
payment certain bills in pursuance OF certain act
Of Parliament refused the ground that
the Lords Commissioners held the money "as servants
Of Crown, and you cannot he Court saidl proceed
therefor against the servants."
Tho opinion adds, another reason why mandamus
cannot be granted. that tho plaintiffs had obtained
ladgment coupons, and that 1t Ia settled law
chat In such case United states Circuit Court has
power 10 mandamus, this writ being issuable
by United Circuit Court only in aid of jurisdie
tisn already acquired.
Justices Field and Harlan read dissenting opinions.
both treating the subject exhaustivey and at great
length Want OF space forbids than bret state
ment of thor more prominent points.
Mr.. Justice Field observes. iaser mtta AHA, that
since the restriction in the Federal Constitution
IL on tho State. and merely the State
in their organic law any provision contravsuing
ths: instrument and that any such provision must be
declared nugstory aud futile by all tribunals hold
iax tbs Constitution Of the United states to be the
supreme law Of the Land; that therefore state enact
psnt inpsiring contract "must be Gas held by the
Court In the recent of Wolf EcwOrlesns, lob
o. g. 1861 disrogarded treated as though fever GA
acted that the have hitherto In numerous In.
stances required State officers, SUCH TO do certain
acts or abstain from doing them; and that t has
6inD hat
State wss in tho controversy that It II tho
settled law ofthe Court that making State officer party
does mako the State paty that II the oucer plead
the authority Of unconstitutional law Tor tho
non the violation OF his duty II Will LOT
prevent issuing of mandamusi that the dniy OF
State to perform Ia not merely honorary
obigation that ensrs into the markets VI
the q she for the tine lays aside ter
sovereignty and responsible a. civil corporsr
ton and that her officers be compelled TO DO what
sho has contracted they shall do. He adds that the
Government will keep it, faith little better can DO
expected from citizen and that contracts are NOS
observed. property win in the end be respected.
In regard to proposition enouncod In the opinion
Of the Court that enactment In State Consutunon
stands on o different footing from an act OF
the Legislature and be pleaded as authority
for the doing unconstitutional act he observes
that the evidently lost sight OF the two clauses
~ the Federal Constitution declaring that the Consu
tuition and the laws OF the United States which soai 10
made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law OF
the and and that "the judges In every State shall he
bound thereby anything Consultation or laws OF
any State TO tho contrary Notwithstanding; and he
segsey adds. AZ coroary "The State cannot SPEAK
through an enactment which contrayenes tho Federal
Constitution"
He further observes that when the duty to De per-
formed IL purely ministerial, involving no discretion
the oscer is ~ much subject the judicial tribunal"
as q private citizen. II IL not our Government
would cease TO DO government OF laws y
hat both this Court and the Virginia Court
~ Appeals In the recent OF Hartmann VS. Green
how ,lO2 u. g. 672). have asserted authority over
Al. iuaaNi