Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-21
A CASE IN POINT.


meme Court of the United States rem
de,ed the following opinion and de-
cision. Our legislators may get hint
from the court itself as to what they
ought to do to keep the States officers
from being sued when the suit is really
against the State
THE LOUISIANA BOND GASES.
No 500. The State Of LOUISIANA, on
the relation Of John Elliott and others.
against tho Auditor, Treasurer, and
Board Of Liquidation Of Louisiana.
No. 500. John Elliott and others
against the Governor, Lieutensnt-Gov-
ernor. Auditor, Treasurer, and other
State officers Of Louisiana. In error
to and appeal from the United States
Circuit Court for the Eastern district of
Louisiana.
The facts which gave rise to this llti-
CATION were as follows The Legisla-
ture OF Louisiana, at its session Of 1874,
by an act known as act No. of that
YEAR. provided for an issue Of bond to
be designated consolidated bonds of the
State to run forty years. and to bear
interest at the rate of ! per cent. per
snnum. A Board Of Legislation was
created with power to issue these bonds
TO the amount OF $4,000, 1000, and to
exchange them for all other valid out
standing bonds for every dollar of the
old. In order to raise funds to pay the
principal and interest of these oblisa-
tions a tax of 81 mills on the dollar
was ordered to be levied annually on
the assessed value Of all the real and
personal property in the State.
On the lst Of January, 1850. the
new Constitution Of Louisiana went
into effect, and by provision known
as the " debt ordinance scaled down
the interest on the consolidated bonds
aforesaid to per cent, fixed the max
imum rate Of taxation for all State
purposes at 6 mills on dollar per an
mum. and gave to the consolidated
bondholders the privilege Of eXchang-
inc their bonds for new obligations
Of the State at the rate Of IS cents
Of the latter for : Of the former,
The new bonds to bear interest at
/ per cent. In January, 1880, Ell
lott and others, who were holders
of the consolidated bonds, brought
the presen: suits in the United States
Circuit Court to have that part of the
new Constitution which related to such
bonds and impaired the obligation of
the alleged contract between the bond
holder and the State declared in con-
hict with the Federal Constitution. and
therefore void aud to have the eHecl-
tive 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 pre-
scIibed by the act of 1874, under which
they were issued. As a defence 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 the
tax and the payment Of the bonds in
question.
Upon final hearing the Circuit Court
denied the relief prayed for in each Of
the suits because it 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 authority
and charged with no duty to pay over
or collect said funds to or in behalf Of
the REALTORS or compliments but on
the contrary, 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 it was concluded
that the State was the party, which by
its action in its original capacity through
the people had rendered the execution
of its contract with the REALTORS impos-
Sible through the instrumentality of its
officers or functionares and that the
question presented was political rather
than Judicial, and could not be adudi-
Gated without calling the State to the
bar Of the court and subyertlng its en-
tire financial basis.
This the Circuit Court was of opinion
it had no power to do, and the present
appeals were taken from the decree aud
judgment.
The decision of this court is en-
bodied in long and carefully-prepsred
opinion by Chief-Justice Waite, the
more important parts of which are as
follows: 1t is clear that it was the
intention of the State of Louisiana to
enter into a formal contract with the
holders Of bonds issued under the act
Of 1874 to levy and collect an annual
tax of five and half mills on the dol
lar 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 in
terest 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 prevent the disbursing officers
from using the revenue from previous
leyies to pay the interest falling due
January, 1880, as well as the princi-
pal and interest falling due thereafter.
That the Constitution of 1879 on its
face takes away the power Of the exc
cutiye officers to comply with the terms
Of the act Of 1874 cannot be denied.
AS against everything but the outstaud-
ing bonds and coupons, this Constitu-
ton is the fundamental law Of the State,
and it is only invalid so far as it inn
pairs the obligation of the contract, on
the faith Of which the bonds and cou-
pons were taken by their respective
holders. The question. then, is whether
the contract can be enforced, not
withstanding the Constitution, by CO.
ercing the agents and instru-
mentalities of the State, whose
authority has been withdrawn in viola
ton of the contract without having the