National Republican., 1883-03-06
TIE NUPKEME UUUKI,
Important Opinions Filed in the Louisiana
Bond Cases.
The Decree Of the Court Below Denying
the Mandamus Affirmed
he Actions Brought by Other States in These Gases
Cannot be Maintained
Tho ConstltutionnIity OF the "Riddle-
berger Bn "--Other Opinions.


present. and the whole afternoon was devoted
to the reading of opinions. The most i'm
portant eases decided were the bond cases
from Louisiana and Virginia, the reading of
opinions in which occupied fully three hours.
The first to be disposed Of were:
THE LOUISIANA BOND CASES.
No. $50. The state of Louisiana, on the re-
lation of John Elliott and others, against the
auditor treasurer, and board of liquidation
OF Louisiana.
No. 529. John Elliott and others against
the governor, lieutenant governor, auditor,
treasurer and other state officers of Louis
lana. In error 10 and appeal from the United
States circuit court for tho eastern district Of
Louisiana.
The facts which gave rise 20 this litigation
were as follows The legislature of Louisiana,
ut its session of 1s7l by an act known as act
No 3 of that year provided for an issue Of
bond to be designated consolidated bonds of
the state TO run forty years, and to bear in
terest Mt the rate of per cent. per annum.
A board of legislation was created with power
to issue these bonds to the amount of Sl5000,-
0OO, and to exchange them for all other valid
outstanding bonds for every dollar of the old.
In order TO raise funds to pay the principal
and Interest Of these obligations n tax of 81
mills on the dollar was ordered to be levied
annually OH the assessed value of all the real
and personal property in the state.
On the first of January, 1850, the new con-
stituton of Louisiana went into effect, and
by an provision known as the debt ordi-
nance" scaled down the interest on the con-
solidated bonds aforesaid to per cent, fixed
the maximum rate of taxation for all state
purposes at 8 mills on dollar per annum, and
gave to the consolidated bondholders the
privilege of exchanging their bonds for new
obligations of the state at the rate of as cents
nj of ha
the new bonds to bear interest at A per
cent. In January, 1850, Elliott and others,
who were holders of tho consolidated bonds
brought the present suits in the United States
circuit court to have that part of the new
constitution which related to such bonds and
imposed the obligation of the alleged con-
tract between the bondholder and the state
declared in conflict with the federal consti-
tuition, and therefore void and to have the
executive officers of the state forced by man
damus to take the necessary steps to pay the
principal and interest of the consolidated
bonds in the manner prescribed by tho act of
1874, under which they were issued, AS a
defense to these actions the executive officers
of the state maintained that by the new state
constitution they were forbidden to carry
out The provisions of the act of 1874, relating
to the levying of tho tax and the payment of
the bonds III question.
Upon final hearing tho circuit court denied
cause 1t appeared that the respondents were
constitutional officers of the state, and had no
relation to the funds collected except as such
officers that they were clothed with no au-
thority and charged with no duty to pay over
or collect said funds to or in behalf of the
relators or complainants; but on the con-
trary, by the organic law of the state under
which their offices were created and exist,
the provisions of which constitute their sole
mandate, they are prohibited from so doing"
For these reasons ii was concluded that tho
state was the party, which by its action in its
original capacity through the people, had rem
dered the exception of its contract with the
rclators impossible through the instrument
ality Of its officers or functionaries; and that
the question presented was political rather
than judicial, and could not be ndjudicated
without calling the state to the bar of the
court and subyerting its entire financial
basis.
This the circuit court was of opinion it had
no power to do, and tho present appeals were
taken from the decree and judgment.
The decision of this court is embodied in n
long and carefully prepared opinion by Chief
Justice Waite the more important parts of
which are as follows: 1t is clear that
1t was the intention of the state of
Louisiana to enter into n formal con-
tract with the holders of bonds issued
under the act of 1874. to levy and coll
lect an annual tax of five and a half mills on
the dollar of the assessed value of all the real
and personal property in the state, and to
apply the revenue derived therefrom to the
payment of the principal and interest of the
bonds and to no other purpose. 1t is equally
clear that the object of the state in adopting
the debt ordinance" in 1879 was to stop the
further levy of the promised tax, and to pre-
vent the disbursing officers from using the
revenue from previous levies to pay the in
tercst falling due JAN, 1850, as well as the
principal and interest falling due thereafter.
That the constitution of 1870 on its face
takes away the power of the executive officers
TO comply with the terms of the act Of 1874
cannot be denied As against everything but
the outstanding bonds and coupons, this con-
stitution is the fundamental law of the state
and il Is only invalid so far as il impairs the
obligation Of the contract, ON the faith OF
which the bonds and coupons were taken by
their respective holders. The question then
is whether the contract can be enforced, not
withstanding the constitution by coercing the
agents and instrumentaities of the state
whose authority has been withdrawn in viola.
tion of the contract without having tho state
itself in its political capacity, party to tho
proceedings. The relief asked will require
the officers, against whom the process goes, t.
act contrary 10 the positive orders of tho
supreme political power of the state, whosi
creatures they are and to which they arr
ultimately responsible in law for what they
do. They must use the public money in thu
treasury and under their control in one way
when the supreme power has directed then
to use il in another, aud they must raise NOR,
money by taxation when the same power hay,
declared that it shall not be done.
Tho remedy sought by the bondholders i'm
plies power in the judiciary to compel tn
state to abide by and perform its contract
for tho payment Of money, not b,
rendering and enforcing a Judgment in tn
ordinary form Of judicial procedure, but b,
assuming the control Of the administration 0
The fiscal affairs Of the state to the extent tina
may bc necessary to accomplish the end II
view. In tho opinion of this court the judi
ciGry has not this power. 1t is insisted, how
ever that tho money already in the trcasur
collected from tho tax levied for the yea
1870 constitutes trust fund Of which tn
Individual defendants arc eX oHlco trus
tees, and that they may be cnjoinod a
such trustees Nom divcrting it from tn
purposes to which il was pledged under tn
contract. But the individual defendants ar
the several officers of the state, who, undo
thc law, compose the board of liquidation
That board is in no sense custodian Of thi
fund The treasurer of the state is the kccpc
of tho treasury, and in that way is the keepC
ul the money collected from this tax just
he i5 the keeper Of other public moneys. ii
holds them, but only MS the agent OF the stat
NOT as a trustee. If there is any trust III
state Is the trustee, and unless the state ca
be sued the trustee cannot be enioined TIL
officers owe duty to the state alone aud have II