Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-03-06
LOUISIANA BONDS.
Two Important Decisions Rendered BY
the United States Supreme Court
The Duties OF
State Officers and the Rights OF Bond
holders - The Bauk Tax Pen.
siOns-Internal Revenue.
WASHINGTON, March 5.-A dsci,io

WAsHINGToN, March ga decision was
rendered in the Supreme Court OF the United
States to-day in the important State bond
cases Of john Elliott ct al. against the gov
ernor, auditor snd treasurer of Louisisps.
These were suits 10 compel The State oficers OF
louisiana to spply to the payment of the in
terest and principal of the consolidated bonds
| OF the State Of 1874 all the moneys received
from the tax OF FIVE and ope-half mills levied
to pay such bonds by act No. 3 of 1874, and
10 continue 10 levy and collect said tax and
make such application of it until euch bonds
shall be fully extinguished and discharged.
The court holds, first, that the State constitu-
ton of Louisiana of 1879 took away the
power of the executive officers of the State
to levy and apply this tax in accordance with
the act OF 1874; second, that executive Off
GERS owe duty TO the State alone, and have
no contract relation with the bondholders:
they can only act as the State directs Them
to act, and hold az the State allows
directs them 10 hold; third, that the court
cannot assume all the executive power of
State, go far as it relates to the enforcement
oi this law, and to supervise the conduct of
all persons charged with any official duty
in respec! TO the levy, collection aud dis.
bursemert OF the tax in question until the
bonds, principal and interest, are paid in
full, and that, loo, in proceeding TO which
the State was not and could not be made a
party; that political power cannot be thus
ousted of its jurisdiction and the judiciary
put In its place. The decree and Judgment
OF the court below, denying the relief and
writ OF mandamus prayed for, are affirmed.
The opinion is by Chief Justice Waite.
ANOTHER DECISION.
decision was also rendered in the cases
of the State of New Hampshire and the
Safe of New York against the Stale of Lou.
isiana and her executive officers. These
were suits on repudiated Louisiana bonds,
which individual bondholders in New Hamp.
shire and New York transferred 10 their
respective States, in order that the States
might bring original suits in this court
against the State of Louisiana to compel the
latter TO fulfill its obligation. This court
HNAuo thot tue euItS are IN eHect not
the suits of the States of New Hampshire
and New York, but suits OF the individual
citizens OF these States against another
State; that the States of New Hampshire and
New York are merely endesyoring to act as
collecting agents for their citizens, and that
this canuot De allowed. The judicial power
of the United States does not extend to suits
commenced and prosecuted as those in effect
are, by individuals sgaiast,oneof The States
OF the Union. The actions cannot be sus-
tanned, and the bills are dismissed.
VIRGINIA BONDS.
A decision was also rendered in the case
OF Andrew Anteni against Samuel c. Green
how, treasurer Of the city of Richmond, Va,
brought here by an appeal from the Supreme
Court Of Appeals OF Virginia. This was a
suit to test the constitutionality of an act of
the General Assembly OF Virginia passed
January IA, 1882, entitled an act to prevent
frauds, etc, popu arly known as the "Riddle-
berger bill" which forbade taxcollectors 10
receive in payment for taxes any coupons
of the State bonds of 1871 and 1879 until The
genuineness of such coupons should have
been established by judicial proceedings
This court holds that the obligation and
contract between the State and its bondhold-
ers has not been improved by the law in
controversy, which does nothing more than
make a change in the nature of the remedy
for its enforcement. The Judgment of the
Supreme Court OF Appeals of Virginia is
affirmed