The Lafayette gazette. [volume] (Lafayette, La.) 1893-1921, 1897-07-03
THEY ARE ALRIGHT
Says the Supreme Court-Tne MI
niciPal Bonds Declared Con-
stitutiOnat
And Lafayette Will Soon Have
WaterwOrkS and Electric
Lights.

its decision in the case involving
the legality Of the bonds proposed
to be issued by the authorities of
| this town for the erection of water
works and electric light plants.
The way this question was forced
into the courts happened in the fol-
lowing manner:
Mr.. J. NJ. Ferguson had entered
into contract to build the inn
provements contemplated for thirty
six thousand dollars payable in
bonds to be issued by the town,
provided their issuance be author
lied by the Legislature. The City
Council, then in power, secured at
some expense, the services of Mr..
Crow Girard to go to Baton Rouge
and press the bill to final passage
by the Legislature which was then
in session. The passage of the act
being accomplished, Mr.. Ferguson
desiring to realize on the bonds that
he proposed to accept, went to Chi
cago for that purpose. OF course,
he believed, as we'll as the town au7
| thorities, that the bonds would be
perfectly legal obligations of the
town, but before he could obtain
even consideration of his propo-
sition to negotiate the bonds he had
to obtain a written opinion of a
firm Of leading corporation lawyers
of Chicago upon their legality.
The opinion of these corporation
| attorneys was that for various rea-
sons the bonds were illegal and un-
constitutional. The result was thu t
Mr.. Ferguson had to either forfeit
his $500 deposited with the City
Council as penalty in case he
failed to carry out his part of the
contract, in that event the town
would get the $500, but no improve
ments) or make a test case of the
question before the courts. We
say test case advised1y, because the
question presented had never been
decided in this State.
In order to bring about decision
the City Council passed an ordi-
nance directing the mayor to sign
and issue the bonds under
the contract. This ordinance
! as was previously understood,
the mayor promptly vetoed for the
reasons stated by the Chicago law
yers. The Council, however, i'm
mediately passed the ordinance over
the mayors veto, but he still re-
appeared in the proceedings of the
Council. Mr.. Ferguson then i'm
nediatcly filed proceedings in The
district court to compel Mr.. Caffery
to sign the bonds. To this demand,
Mr.. Caffery, in order to carry out
the plan, answered that the act Of
the Legislature authorizing the is
suance of the bonds, was unconsti-
tuition and illegal, and hence he
could not be forced to commit an
illegal act.
Judge Debaillon, without passing
upon the question raised by the
mayor, decided that having no in
terest individually he could not re
fuse to sign the ordinance, when the
contractor was waiting to accept
the bonds in payment for his work,
and ordered him to forthwith sign
and issue the bonds to the con-
tractor. And there the case stood.
Mr.. Ferguson could get the bonds
signed, but their legality yet re-
manned a question undecided. He
| was certainly i'm no better, if not in
a worse, position. Necessarily the
case had to be carried to q higher
court to obtain, if possible, a de-
cis,on on the question Of their con-
stitutionality and legality. The
Council could not mo,aILr exact the
|