The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1889-04-20

tOTm. lkOoW OI no ptl0C1plo W0lCn
i will au,horizs the court to accept the
uor-sctiou or default Of the board as
conferrirg jufi-dictiOn upon 1t to con.
slider the plaintlfYs' demand fur the
funding of the bonds, and to direct the
issuance 10 them Of the consolidated
bonds, OF the State therefor, when the
statutes give Jurisdiction to the courts
only in the event of the rejection by a
msjnri,y of the board OF the plaintiffs
demand, which, in my view, means
consolidation aud examination by the
board, ascribed in its official and cor
Iporate capacity and positive and
affirmative action by the vote OF a
majority of its inern bershiP adverse to
the p!antitf,' application. ,y, ..,3 ~"
Ii wnuld also seem, Tor silnilar rea-
SONS, that the board, if it has the
power, as plaintiffs contend, to ssques.
tom any item of the State Indebted
| ness, which is not '.questlonod'' as
E.sdoubsfui', by the State, otherwis
/ through any. csmpeteSl authority, its
action in 50 Questioning" could only
be expressed by the vote OF the major
ny of its membe assembled as a
board, and upon consideration by reso.
luton formally uttered. The question:,
10 produce any lega! effect at all, con-
cedins that the board can "question"
in the sense and meaning of the act
No. L of 1876, the State indebtedness
otherwise than by formal rejection Of
the items offered to it. by the holder
for s.audit,'' "fundiug'' and "ex.
changc,'' would have to be ordained
by the formal vote of the majority Of
the members, for otherwise It would
no, be an s'offioial act,'' aud the last
sentence of section 3 of act Al, of, 1875
is: GA majority of said board shall
be required in order 10 perform an
official act. ",hod hisa tt'1>tts{ il's "d-
1t was urged in argument that plain
tifs' application could be deferred
iudc tinitely by the action of the board
III refusing or failing tn meet, and that
thus deferring their demands, ad
g,.ecus calludas, it would be question
upon their rights AS ,effectual rs ad-
verse action or, in other words, that
this claim can be (tf their. right of
appeal to the courts be contingent
action by the aboard), as effectually
defeated by -iDterminable delay and
non action as if denied aud refused
outright.
| In reply to this 1t can bs stated that
outside Of the fact that the board failed
to meet, as n squested by plaintiffs at
torney, on the 21st Of fIanuary, 1889, up
to March IS, when this suit was flied +,
there is nothing in the evidence to
vindicate that the officers composing
the board intend thus by intiirectioD,
evasion or undue delay to defeat plains
tif1.' right to hearing before them.
The Auditor,the secretary Of the board,
| suggested that meeting could be held
in April or May of this year, and 1t
empowered that a meeting was held
not long before plaintiffs application
! during the past wintsr. The Governor
said that he desired 10 consider hi
duty in the premises, or to that effect.
The plaintiffs claim is a large one,
and though The funding law has been
in operation since 1874 and 1875 and the
State debt ordinance since 1880, they
have never, so far as the record shows,
moved to avail themselves Of ssiu acts,
until January of this year. If they re.
ceive bonds with the interest coupons,
from Jan. /, 1874, rs they claim, it can
matter LILLE whether the board hear
them in February Or May. The delay,
all circumstances considered, does not
appear reasonable, and that plaintiffs
will be denied hearing hy the board :,
the court cannot presume and does n OF
believe.
But should the case. supposed in ar
gument by counsel, arise and the board
conspire not to meet and by non-action
to defeat plaioliffs efforts TO have their
bonds funded, the csse would then
arise, should the plaintiffs elect TO
press j., whether public servants oSthe
State aud people can by inaction defeat
aud obstruct the operation Of the case
any more than they can violate II by
positive acts.
Ia my judgment the plaintiffs, In that
event, would have their action to CON-
pei consideration and definite action by
the officers charged with that duty. II
rrovable action should result, they
would rec i've their bonds. If trans-
ferAbie, then, by the very terms OF the
ac, Of 1864, they would have thcac'ior
before the courts. fH. ...1
For the reasons there must be judg'
nent su-taining the exception and dis
missing the PLAINTIFF suit at their COS
wi,fou; prejudice to any right ofactior
which may hereafter arise in their favor
An appea! will be taken to the sn
prcue Ccuri.
Chicsgo Tribune; "Iour htHDr,
said the prosecuting attorney. -.