The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1905-01-08

'j'at'S iitid tiat JuuStiftitS against d
quasi corporation may be satisfied out
Of The property Of any individual in
hlbltait In other words these States
satisfy tho just claims Of bond holders
by attaching and selling the property of
individuals who are citizens of the
QUASI corporation which has repudiat-
ed its bonds.
Other States resort to compulsory
taxation. Instead of holding individuals
responsible. these States hold the cor
Doratinn itself responsible and compel
its officers by writ of mandamus to col
lect the taxes necessary to the satisfac-
ton Of the debt. This procedure may be
defended says Prof Fl = Adams, on
the ground that when a political cor
Doration has contracted debt or in
Cured an obligation. it has already
taken the initiatory step in taxation, and
has in effect given its consent that the
subsequent steps. so far as they may be
essential. to the discharge of such debt
or obligation may be taken
Both of these methods are feasible
and efficient when employed against
cities and other subordinate political
Units, but would they work equally
against repudiatrg States2
1t must be admitted that such meth
OILS Of procedure would be entirely
without precedent. if we except the mil
itary governments established in the Sc
Cedlng States at the close Of the civil
war; that they would strike a blow at
the Legislative independence of States:
and that they would weaken what, re-
mains of State sovereignty. But do
these facts constitute valid objections to
The rerscdy which they propose? IS
that feature of Legislative independence
which makes it possible for A State to
repudtate her debs-and that is the
only feature TOUCHED by this remedy
iesirablc7 Would not the States be the
gamers by the relinquishnent of this
shadow of sovereignty for the substance
If Il good credit
The above is from "'rhe Reconciliation
If State Debts, Study in the Financial
History of Mississippi. Florida. Ala
'ama, North Carolina. South Carolina.
Georgia. Louisiana, Arkansas. Tennes-
zee, Minnesota, Michigan and Virginia"
~ VIM. A. Scott University of Wiscon-
lin. Published by T. Y. Crowell & Co,
New York and Boston, 1889
Extract from opinion of Mr. Find1ay,
United States commissioner on Vene-
uelan' Claims Convention~Claim of
Rowland & Co, VS.. Venezuela for
100000 consolidated bonds:
his claim was presented to the old
Commission and dismissed because it
represented consolidated debt
The. joint resolution Of 1883 which
'rovided for the rc-opening of the old
lain and the creation of new COM
mission was passed not at the instance
# Venezuela only, but of citizens of the
United States who felt aggrieved at the
Id Commission in Diminishing their
lainis. -
The most active promoter OF TIE
sgislation was the gentleman who has
rgued this case for the elain17nts and
rho appears TO have been the craftsman
f the joint resolution in which this
convention originated
These facts were we'll known, this
lis claim had been presented to the old
commission and rejected (In 1861
we are aware that it is not the pol
y of the United States to exert diplo-
latic intervention. in behalf Of claims
tirely eontractual.
IF We were representing or speaking
ne policy of the United States we
'ould be obliged to dismiss this petit
on and send the parties to Caracas,
ut we are sitting here under a treaty
etween the two countries, the object of
'hich is to have heard and determined
i claims. .-s--
After the submission of this claim
} the old Convention and the steps
lat were taken to reopen its work artd
ave new adjudication, it would strain
reliability beyond endurance to sup
ose that this matter was not discussed
7 the p1enipotentiaries Of the respee~
We powers and that the whole matter
naer the comprehensive term claims
as referred for settlement to this Com
ission.
1T will be admitted that the policy of
e United States is correctly stated, but
e can conceive of no reason why such
policy should not be departed from
hen arbitration is adopted as the meth
Of finally adjndieating international
aims.
We hold that nothing short of
ords Of express exclusion in treaty,
II restrain or limit the meaning of the
ain language used"
The above decision pronounced in
90. twenty-five years after the How
nd bond claim had been dismissed by
e original Commission. not ot.tv &c.