Case Name: State of Louisiana v. Charles Clinton, Auditor, and A. Dubuclet, Treasurer. G. A. Sheridan, intervenor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1874-05
Citations: 26 La. Ann. 561
Docket Number: No. 4619
Parties: State of Louisiana v. Charles Clinton, Auditor, and A. Dubuclet, Treasurer. G. A. Sheridan, intervenor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 561–565

Head Matter:
No. 4619.
State of Louisiana v. Charles Clinton, Auditor, and A. Dubuclet, Treasurer. G. A. Sheridan, intervenor.
The objection to the validity of the bonds issued, under act 32, approved February 25,1870, to pay for work on the levees of tlie State, has no force. Said act is not in conflict with articles 110 and 118 of the constitution of the United States.
The payment by the State in the form of bonds, for work on the levees of the State, is not taking private property, or divesting vested rights in the meaning of the constitution, State, or federal. The question as to whether a tax shall be levied on all the taxable property of the State, or only on the particular localities where the work is done, is a question of policy to be determined by the Legislature and not by the courts, there being no constitutional regulation on the subject. . ,
■Whether the original proprietors were bound or not to keep up the levees, do.es not affect the power or right of the State to do so, and, in this proceeding, the court can not pass on the question of consideration if it be a matter for judicial inquiry.
Whether these were the necessary parties to institute a suit or not in this instance before the intervention of Sheridan, the holder of some of the bonds in question, it is quite sure that, after he intervened, to the extent of liis interest in the bonds, there was a plaintiff in injunction, the State; and a defendant, Sheridan; and there was thus a joinder of issue.
The act, Ho. 32, called in question, was approved on the twenty-fifth of February, 1870, about two months before the adoption of the constitutional amendment referred to. It is impossible therefore to imagine how that law can be affected by said amendment.
The construction of levees can not J)e called a local work in Louisiana, but even should pucli a work be local in its character, there is no prohibition against the General Assembly authorizing local improvements to be made and providing for the payment thereof.
Taxes should only be levied for those purposes which properly constitute a public burden. But what is for the public good, and what are public purposes and what does constitute a public burden, are questions which the Legislature must decide upon its own judgment, and in respect to which it is vested with a large discretion, which can not be controlled by the courts, except perhaps when its action is clearly evasive, and where, under pretense of a lawful authority, it has assumed to exercise one that is unlawful.
If the theory of the plaintiff be correct, that the appropriations for levees and railroads are for private purposes and not legitimately the subjects for legislation, and therefore, that the debts created for such purposes are unconstitutional — a fortiori'vrovlS. bonds, issued in aid of the property banks of this State be void — and thus, all the bonded debt' of the State, created during thp last forty years, would be null and void. Courts, whoso duty it is to deal with facts and laws, can not seriously be expected to adopt such vagaries. ‘ .
Ho provision of the constitution has been cited, which.forbade the State to contract the debt in question, and if there be none, as is believed to be the fact, the debt is valid.
Appeal from the Superior.IMstrict Court, parish of Orleans. Hawkins, J.
A, P.. Meld, Attorney General, J. Q. A. Fellowts, J. B. Oofton, J. S._ Whitaker, B. Madison Bay, for. plaintiff .and appellant. W. O. Benegre, for the Auditor. Kennard,,, Howe & Prentiss, for.inter-

Opinion:
Howell, J.
This appeal presents the intervention, of one G. A. Sheridan, as holder of certain " levee, bonds," in the injunction suit of the State against the Auditor and Treasurer, a branch of which we have just decided. The matter involved.in this proceeding is the validity .of the bonds .issued under act 32, approved February 25,(1870, to pay for] work on the levees of the State, th.e payment .of the coupons attached thereto having been injoi.ned by the State on the grounds:
First — That the Legislature had no power to create said, obligation.
Second — That the proprietors of property fronting on the water courses of Louisiana subject to overflow, had contracted in the original purchase of the property to keep up the levees in front of their lands, and had purchased the same by reason of said condition at a much reduced price.
Third — That the property in the State not subject to overflow can not constitutionally be taxed for the protection of lands which are so subject, that is, the property of the whole State can not be taxed for the benefit of a part of the State.
Fourth — That there is no valid consideration for said bonds.
First and third. It is urged that the law 32 of 1870, authorizing the bonds, is in conflict with articles 110 and 118 of the constitution of the State and the fifth amendment of the constitution of the United States, which prohibit the divestiture of vested rights, or the taking of private property, except for public purposes and for just and adequate compensation, and require taxation to be equal and uniform, and therefore the Legislature was without authority to create the debt or impose the tax, as is done, for its extinguishment. We are unable to perceive the conflict. The payment by the State, in the form of bonds, for work on the levees of the State, is not taking private property or divesting vested rights, in the meaning of the constitution, State or federal. The State simply caused certain work or improvements of a public character to be done or made, which, in the opinion of the Legislature, was for the benefit of the State and some or all of its inhabitants, which the Legislature had the power and authority to do, as it is not prohibited by the constitution. The question as to whether a tax shall be levied on all the taxable property of the State, or only on the particular localities where the work is done, is a question of policy to be determined by the Legislature and not by the courts, there being no constitutional regulation on the subject.
The other grounds are equally untenable. Whether the original proprietors were bound or not to keep up the levees, does not affect the power or right of the State to do so. And in this proceeding we can not pass on the question of consideration if it be a matter for judicial inquiry.
Judgment affirmed.