New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-03-06
BOND CASES SETTLED.

,s,.y. CONSOLIDATED BONDS OF 1874 UNsUC-
CEssFUI-
WASHINGTON, March 5.-The Supreme Court
a, the limited states convened at to-day, after the
nspal February recess. Ali the Justices present
and tho afternoon devoted to the reading OF
oppions The most important decided were the
bond cases from Louisiana aud Virginia. the reading OF
opinions in which occupied fully three hours.
The first to be disposed of No 520-The State OF
Louisiana, on the relation of John Elliott and Others
against Auditor Treasurer and Board OF Liquidation
OF Louisiana-and No 529-John Elliott and others,
against the Governor, observation-disclosures, Auditor
Treasurer and other State officers Of Louisiana In
and appeal from the United States Circuit Court
for the Eastern District OF Louisiana.
HISTORY OF THE FIRST CASES.
The facts which gave rise TO this litigation were as
follows:
The Legislature of Louisiana ut Its session OF 1874 by
an act known as Act No of that year. provided for an
issue of bonds, to be designated consolidated Donds
the State forty years. and to bear interest at
created with power 70 issue these bonds to the
other valid outstanding bonds of the state at the rate of
60 cents in bonds for every dollar OF the old In
order TO raise funds to pay the p9cpa and odT wS o
ordered TO be levied annually on the assessed value OF
On the s tor of January sS the new constitution of
Louisiana vent into effect and by provision known as
consolidated bonds aforesaid to per cent, xe the
maximum "a of taxation for all State purposes at
bondhoders the privilege exchanging their bonds FOR
new obligations OF the State at the rate OF 70 cents
of the latter for 81 OF the former the new bonds 10 pear
In January $780, Elliott and others who were holders
consolidated bonds brought the present suits In
the United states Circuit Court 10 hive that part of the
new Constitution which related to such bonds and i'm
paired the obligation of the alleged contract between the
bOndhOders and the state, declared In conflict with the
Federal and ySa aRd to nvs
10 take necessary steps 70 pay the principal and interest
the act Of 1874 under which they were Issued AS de-
fence these actions the executive officers OF the State
maintained that by the new State Constitution they were
forbidden carry out the provisions of tho Act OF 1874
relating to the eyng OF the tax and the payment OF the
Upon final hearing the Circuit Court denied the relief
prayed for in each OF the SUITS because it appeared
the State aud had relation to the funds collected
except such ocers that they were clothed with no
authority charged with no iuty 10 over or COL
said funds to in behalf of tie REALTORS or complain
under Sa ne S ssS HS
the provisions OF when constitute their sole mandate
concluded that the party which, by Its
action In lite original capacity through the people had
impossible through the of its officers
lunctionaIes and that the question presented was po
without calling the State to the bar Of the coar and sub
opinion 1t HAD do and the present
peals we're taken from its decree aud Judgment.
DECISION THE COURT.
The decision of this court Is embodied
In long carefully prepared opinion by Chief jus
tee Waite, the more important parts of which
follows:
clear that st the intention of the State OF
Louisiana 10 enter INTO formal contract with the hold
collect an annual tax Of sig mills dollar of the
ed value OF all the real and personal property in the
payment of the principal and interest Of the bonds and
TO no other purpose 1t equally clear that the object
of the State In adopting the Z" debt ordinance In
1879 stop the further levy OF the promised tax
and to prevent the disbursng officers from using the
trim 10
due in January 1880 as well as the principal and inter
That the Constitution Of 1879 on its face
takes away the power OF the executive on
act 1874 cannot denied against everything
the outstanding bonds and coupons, tbs Constitution IS
It impars the Obligation of the contract the
fatn OF which tine bonds and coupons were taken by
the contract be enforced notwithstanding the Con
stuton by coercing the agents and nstruInenaities
violation OF the contract without having the State itself
The relief asked Will require the officers against whom
the process act contrary to the positive orders OF
they are and to winch they ultimately e.ponsiole
in law for what they do. They must use the public
money In the Treasury and under their control IN
way when the supreme power has directed them to use
1t in anoher and they must raise more money by tax
alton when the power has declared that II shall
The remedy sought by the bondboders implies power
In the Judiciary compel the state to abide and
for the payment Of money not by rem
derng and enforcing Judgment IN the ordinary form OF
administration of the fiscal affairs OF the State to the
tent that be necessary toaccompsh the end In view
In tue opinion OF this Court the judiciary has not TINS pow
1t insisted however, that the money already ~ the
constitutes trust fund OF which the individual defend
eDs ex oiclo trustees and that they may be e lined
trustees from diyerng IL from the purposes To
which was pledged under the contract But the ind
vidnal defendants the several officers OF the
who under the law, compose the Board OF Lquda
zion. That Board Is In no sense custodian OF thls
Treasury. and in that way ia the keeper OF the
moneys collected from this tax just as he is the keeper OF
agent Of the STATE not as trustee II there any trust
the the trustee and unless TIE state can be sued
tue trustee be enjoned. The officers owe duty
10 the State alone and have no contract relations with
the ddey can Pay e ac a s Te 10 os
1t agreed that their relations with the bond
holders should be any officers Of the State
or that they should nave any tbis fund.-
cept keep like other funds In the treasury and pay
state, the State through them. There nothing
in the sG by the "n 4ee Witch 1R the
asked. The remedy sought III order to be complete
would require COurt TO all the executive
thoy OF The state so Tar as related 10 the enforcement
of this law aud to supervise the conduct OF all the per
charged with ANY official duty III respect to the
levy collection aud disbursement OF lhe tax In the ques-
tOn until the bonds principal and interest were paid In
state was not. and could not be made party. II
needs argument 10 suow tnat the political power can
not OUsted OF it's Jurisdiction, and the judiciary
set place When State submits itself without
reservation 70 the Jurisdiction OF Court In particular
what state has by its act OF submission allowed 70 be
GERS to enforce any judgment nst may be rendered then
such coercion may be employed for that purpose.
But this is very Tar from authorizing
the Courts when State cannot be sued TO set It's
Jurisdiction the officers IN charge OF the public
moneys control them against the political
power in their administration OF tie finances OF the
State In opinion To grant the relief asked for in
either Of these would be TO exercise such power"
The decree ia the suit In equity and the judgment
in that for mandamus affirmed. Dissenting opinions
in these were read by Justice Field and Justice
Haran
STATES AS AssIGNEEs.
At the conclusion the dissent Chief Justice Waite
nd nj dcCisiOn
of the Court in the closely allied of the State OF
Ne Hampshire aud the State OF NewYork against the
State Of louisiana both of which original actions in
this court enforce payment Of the same consolidated
bonds which were controversy In the OF Elliott
others against tae state officers OF Just decided
tine l1lo aLiau in Iht Now amp