St. Landry democrat., 1883-05-19
The Louisiana Bond Cases.
SENATOR MARsToN, OF RED RIVER, DIS
CUSsEs THE SUBJECT AND GIVES
HIS VIEWS.
iShreThport. Standard

Editor STANDARD
The following extract is from the
Shreveport Times of March nth, and
being SO singular in its conclusion, l
fear from what see in other papers,
that this great question is not well un-
derstood by the people, and that it
should be thoroughly discussed.
write from the standpoint of those
of us in the Legislature, who thought
that as this question was before the
Supreme Court of the United States, it
was ill-timed to legislate upon it, and
as the constitution had "fxed" the set
Element had no power to disturb il. We
We therefore had the temerity to vote
against the act giving to the holders OF
bonds their accrued interest without the
acceptance Of the debt settlement; and
| the proposed amendment to the constl-
tuition, giving to the holders OF bonds 4
per cent. after five years, instead OF 5
per cent for fifteen years, as now liked"
by the debt ordinance.
The Times says:
sThe settlement effected by the constitution
was an open question until these cases We're
| tried. The interest intended for the bond
holders was accommodating III the hands OF the
| fiscal agent because of their refuSa to take IT,
| hoping to get the whole amount of their III
debtedness as it existed before the constlt,s-
| tional convention legislated on the subject.
Even the wise amendment proposed 70 the
debt settlement by the last legislature threat
/ ened to end Intellectually. The case may now
| be considered as closed. The bondnolders
must take their reduced interest or get moth
ing. The State will proceed in their ttaancial
work as if tile debt settlement were beyond
change or revision. The constitutional
amendment will be passed by large majority.
/ The debt question will disappear from politics
| and from discussion in financial and business
| circles"
So, now, as understand the Times,
and similar idea was recently ex-
pressed by the Times-Demoerat OF New
Orleans, the people have only to accept
the proposed amendment by ''a large
majority" Why? Because the court
of last resort has decided adversely to
the holders of bonds, after a long, ex-.
pensive and revolutionary litigation
Because these bonds have declined
about ten points since that decision 7
This question consumed nearly all the
/ time of the constitutional convention
Its settlement was voted upon and ac,
ception separately by the people, and
/ if there was any opposition to its ratl-
| fcation by the holders OF bonds, Ger
tainly the newspapers and orators
claimed it, but the suing holders OF
+ | UOutkS NCuU SOaA
. | the letter of their bond. The ultimate
decision OF these suits was constantly
held as threat. Comparatively few
holders of bonds would accept the inter
est collected for them and deposited IL
the fiscal agent bank, where it was usee
for banking purposes at the risk of the
State, because OF the small bond re-
quired, and because at one time, as the
governor so informed me, the bond hat
expired. Now, to be generous we are t
vote the holders of the bonds an abso
lutte bonus of about $780, 900 per annum
because they failed to make their case
/ This in fifteen years amounts to th'
snug little sum of $1,800,000. We ar
to do this when we know that S.. .OOO, ,00l
and upwards of the debt was stolen ant
is fraud; when we know the majo
/ part Of it was saddled upon the state b,
an adventurous and irresponsible Radl
4 cal party, the legislatures and constltu
tional convention Of which was com
1 posed, as rule, OF ignorant, bribe-tak
! ing, corn field negroes, who We're bough
and sold like sheep-and vicious whit
| men, bribe-taking also, who manipu
i lated them. Besides, a considerabl
] portion of the bonds, in good faitL