The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1888-12-01

uoous except JOr amount realized from
the legal and proper liquidation of the
mortgage stock department, under the
terms of agreement
''but these presents are not to be
construed as impairing the claims If
the parties OF the second part upon the
bonds against the State, which claims
are maintained in all their integrity as
a. thss agreement had not been .,eocge.''
This document was signed at New
Orleans by E. L. Carriere, Nov, S,
1850, and at Amsterdam by Hope g.
Co., Oct. 8, 1880.
There Ia little comfort for Louisiana
in this exhibit. A deb, of less than four
millions AMI half has been allowed to
accumulate more than half its amount
In interest up to eight years ago, since
which time we have no exact statement.
II Is evident that the bondholders We're
willing, In consideration, e r-".n$sed
activity by the bank in mnki..a ,tttc.
lions from mortgage debtors and apply
ing the proceeds exclusively to the
redemption Of the coupons and extern
ded warrants, to agree not to sue the
oank nor seek to collect from it any
farther sums than might be realized
from such collections. That is to say,
the creditors accepted all the seizable
assets OF the endOrser In lieu of their
claim on 1t, and intimated their inten-
ton to look to the principal to:the
State-for the remainder. For, though
the bank Is the real debtor, the papers
were 30 drawn as to make the State
legally so.
A correspondent of The Item, in
ViQUinO tho onnifioo - To-
dentaiiy stated that the bank was the
principal obsigor, while another stand
Ing on the bond,' corrects him aud says
the State is.
Both correspondents were quite
right from their respective stand
points. The bank ought to pay the
whole amount, principal aud interest.
Ii 1t falls or refuses to do so, then the
State will be expected to make good
Its promises and fall back upon such
recourse as demand on the bank will
afford. Though Messrs. Hope & Co.
have agreed on certain conditions to
release the bank in both of its depart.
ments from all liability, yet it does
not appear that the State has abated
any claim 1t may have on that institu-
ton. 1t ia hardly likely that enough
will ever be collected on compromises
with the mortgage debtors to discharge
the immense load of interest. And as
both the holder and the indorser seem
to be agreed that the liability of the
bank Is limited to this sole item OF the
assets, the State may prepare itself
sooner or later, TO consider a demand
upon 1t for payment or renewal on
terms satisfactory to the holders. We
understand that the bonds are of diff.
ferent dates, aud have been renewed
from time to time for twenty-five
years beyond maturity. They cannot
be pressed for collection till they are
due, nor presented for funding so long
as current interest is provided for.
Some of these conditions, it will be
seen, are dependent upon the result
of the efforts of the mortgage depart
ment TO make collections. In any
event, either the creditors stand to
lese their principal and a good deal Of
their interest, or the State must come
to the rescue and look to the bank for
reimbursement. And herein the con-
stitntional limitation upon the State
debt will have an important bearing.