The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1883-04-18
WRITTEN FOR THE DEMOCRAT.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

There was recently decided by the
Supreme Court Of the United States,
one Of the most important test cases
that has been before that august trl-
bunal since the famous bred Scott
case before the war. We might, per-
laps have to except the decision OF
the same tribunal in the case OF the
Grant Parish plisioners-the impor-
lance of which, in so far as it related
to criminal prosecutions for alleged
political offenses, can not be oVerestl'
mated, The history Of the compro-
mise with the bondhoders of this State
in 1874 during the Kellogg regime is
well-known. The debt of this State
which was largely fraudulent was
scaled to sixty cents on the dollar and
new bonds issued. The Constitutional
Convention of 1879 treating large
portion of this bonded debt as frandu-
lent, as it certainly was in fact, pro-
posed to refund it at Is per cent, with
four per cent interest. This settle
ment has not yet been accepted by the
bondholders and the accumulated in
terest, amounting now to about one
million dollars or more, is in the hands
of the State Fiscal Agent.
That citizen of the same or another
State can not sue State without her
express consent, is not anywhere de-
uied. Thinking to avoid this plain
principle, and upon the superstition
that the State itself is superior to its
own citizens, the State Of Massachu-
setts had herself subrogated to the
rights of some of her citizens who
owned Louisiana State bonds. and
brought suit upon them in the United
States Courts. The United States Su
prcme Court recently decided these
cases in favor of our State, thus again
recognizing the dem ocratic doctrine
of States rights.
A singular feature of the cases is
that Justice Field, who was promi-
nentIy spoken of the last time as the
probable nominee of the Democratic
party for President, and who is widely
known as a States rights democrat,
read a dissenting opinion, which by
the courtesy of a friend is before me.
He was probably influenced by the
same patriotic motives and the prompt
ings of the same sturdy, incorruptihle
honesty, that induced the memorable
remark of Henry Clay, that he would
"rather be right than to be President"
Judge Field is already being spoken OF
again us presidential candidate and
whether he is or is not correct in his
views of the law, there must and can
be accorded him the praise he merits
for following his convictions, when his
interests We're all the other way. We
need more of sucl, men in hig! public
places, and it ought to add t" rather
than detrnct from Judge Fields chan
ces for the presidency, that he has
proven himself to be man of so much
nerve and withal to be SO consc!en.
tious.
One may not agree with the dissent.
ing Judge and yet have no more pa.
1 thence than he has with reputation
! That question may be dismissed will
; the statement that to thoroughly ap
prcciate how fraudulent a large por
: ton of the Louisiana bonded debt is
one must have been actually presen
= in this State during the Warmoth ant
, Kellogg regimes, and con versant viii
+ the rascally methods of the time. Thu
J first scaling to 0per cent. of the whole
8 did not purify the remainder. Kellogg
t prded himself on the fact that duriny
j. his term the State debt was reduce,
from $s25.OG0,C00 to $I5,O00,0GO, tn
limit fixed by the constitutional amend
meE: OF ;s74, but it is we'll known tina
d many fraudulent aud fictitious claim
e we're then funded by his Board. How
:, ever that may be, law has nothing t.
n do with the policy or morals of repu
',,liatiou per Sc. The question bctor
the Court was the sovereignty of til
'e States. The point to be deteriulne
% was whether the States, like indivil
l. ua!s, could he matte subject to the pro
e cesses of tile Courts. The object G
L the suits was to prevent the officers Il
oi this State from carrying out the com
~ mands of the Constitution of 1879, G
Al as the plaintiffs termed it, from divert
" ing the interest fund from the pnrpt
) ses to which it had been pledged i
e. advance by the debt settlement {
T. 1874. The autonomy of the States wa
e, involved and Reputation was IL sma
G matter in comparison with the re;
IS Issue.
" The first point madeby Justice Fie|
n. is that the State OF Louisiana had COZ
In sented in advance to be sued upon I'll
n contract with the bondholders made
" 1874. That the Act of the Legislatul
= and the Constitutional Amendment
p that year did declare the propose
% funding at sixty per cent. to be pc
Il petual contract between the State an
+. the bondholders, and that the State o
re fcers were explicitly directed to co
r lect and pay owe, the interest at state
~ times, is not to be denied bnt it is NJ
:. shown MORGAN it be, that the Sta
~ consented anywhere in those Acts
r he sued in her own Courts and mut
" less in the Federal Courts. The Coz
IN stitution of the Uuited States dec|ar,
ly in general terms that no State sha
lis pass any law impairing tho obligatit
he Of contracts already entered into, ar
do it is not disputed by the most rampa
~ advocate of States rights, that Il
= Federal Courts can declare such Ac
~ to be in violation of this provision
ne the Federal Constitution and that a
- ter such declaration such Acts, VIVA
lis ever their nature, would be strick,
with nnllity. The State Courts tai
IS. the law from the Supreme Court a,
he they could not and would not en!or
of the provisions of any Act 80 declar
" to be obnoxious to TIE supreme law
~ tAe land. Nor are there wanting q
,,S' portunities to properly test all sn
~ questions in actions legally brought
lm the United States Courts or remov
wo from the State Courts under the Jutl
he larry Act of 1889 and the amcndmer
for thereto. No question Of State sove