The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1889-04-20
THE HOPE BONDS.
Tie Exception of the Attorney General
Sustained and the Suit of the Ans
tcrLam Bankers Dismissed.

Judge T. C. w. Ellis of the Clv,l
District Court, Parish Of O:!eats rer .
dered the following opinion in ,i:e ise
Of Hope & Co. of Amsterdam VS.. The
Board Of L Liquidation
II is elementary that tie S,i,.t (lhe
sovereign j canno, be sued without. her
consent. In the matter of auditing
and funding the indebtedness of the
State and the exchange of consolidated
bonds therefor, the State .bropgh the
provisions of act No. 3 of 1871 las coli
sented that she may tie sued, in one
contingency only, and thar is found in
the first provision Of the third sect TOO
of said act, which is "ihat the holder.
or any bond, val d warrant, rjsc.eu
by majority o! said board, may
apply by petition 70 the proper court
for rt lief, and If tiual Judgment shall
be rendered il his favor against said
board it shall be the duty of said board
10 fund said claim in honds "a; the rate
provided by this ac'."
BY the terms of act No. IL of 1879,
supplemental to SAID act No. 5 of 1874,
another contingency is d, ciared. in
which suit may be- brought, and that
is found iu the provisions Of said act,
In the provisions Of said act, which
prohibit the board Of liquidation from
issuing consolidated bonds of the State
in exchange for any bonds or warrants
purportiDg 10 be items Of State indebi-
edoess, "the legality or validity Of
which may have been, or may here
after be questioned, mill said bonds or
warrants shall first, by faai decree Of
the supreme court of the State, have
been declared legal and valid obliga-
tiOns Of the State of Louisiana, and
that the same were issued in strict
conformity to law aud not in violation
of the constitution Of this State Or OF
the United Siates.'' H
In order thus to test the questioned
bonds or warrants before the supreme
court the net gives the right of action
specifically to taxpayers of the State
aud the right IF action TO the holders
Of such Questioned bonds or warrants
to intervene in any suit or suits
brought under the provisions CT this
act, etc. .r.... 4s.f SEQ
ln the second section of said act a
statement is made of the name and
amount of certain issues Of bonds
which are declared "questioned and
doubtful" and certain items of the
floating debt enjoined in suit then
pending, are also referred TO as in the
same category.
The bonds offered for exchange and
TO be funded by the plaintiffs arc not
to be found in the enumeration Of the
"que STONED and doubtful issues re-
ferred to in slid act IL of 1875, nor
have they ever been acted upon and
rejected by majority Of the board of
liquidation at any meeting or consult
tation of tho members OF that board.
It would therefore seem, as ;here is no
special act giving the plaintiffs the
right to sue the State, that they have
no righ of action to compel the board
to fund their bonds as they have
attempted in this case. ,. suri
The duty of auditing and funding
bonds or warrants of the fundable class
has been intrusteu to board consist
ing of officers sll Of whom Belong to
the political department of the govern
ment--i. e., the legislative and eXecE-
tive, to wit: the Governor and Leuten-
ant Governor, the Auditor, Treasurer
y
the house of representatives., to whom
was added the president OF the New
Orleans Cotton Exchange by the act Of
1875. The judiciary has no represen.
tative upon the board, and the disCrc-
tion Of the board to fund and exchange,
or not, has not been inierfered with by
the courts, except az specially author.
lied by the provisions OF law herein
above noticed, i. e., after the board, by
and rejected the holders demand.
OF course, the courts have always
been opened to suits TO test the validity
and legality of bonds or warrants
! classed as ''doubifui or ques;iored' by
the State as authorized by The act u.
1875. To take this case out of the ger
eral rule plaintiffs have urged in argu-
| ment that the DOn-actiCn Of the board
and their failure to meet and consider
the bonds, as demanded and regulated
since the 2lst January last, amounts in
law and in fact to "ques:ioninS" oil
the bonds Of plsiuiitfs, and that not
granting The p,aint tifTs II hearing is such
II denial ofJustice on the part of the
board of liquidation as to make ,heil
conduct amount 10 Il re- lection by /
majority of the members of the board
ana, ergo, plaintiffs have their right o
action through the courts as prOpoun.
ded in their petition. Ia this behal
they rely upon the written demands
aud requests to the auditor aud COVER
nor, ard falling 10 secure Il call FOR l