Case Name: State of Louisiana ex rel. Mrs. W. P. Noble vs. Charles Clinton, Auditor. State of Louisiana, Intervenor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1876-04
Citations: 28 La. Ann. 400
Docket Number: No. 5404
Parties: State of Louisiana ex rel. Mrs. W. P. Noble vs. Charles Clinton, Auditor. State of Louisiana, Intervenor.
Judges: The Chief Justice adheres to the previous decision.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 400–402

Head Matter:
No. 5404.
State of Louisiana ex rel. Mrs. W. P. Noble vs. Charles Clinton, Auditor. State of Louisiana, Intervenor.
whore the appropriations are not in excess of revenues, no debt is created in contemplation ol the constitutional a-r ondmont limiting the Slate debt to twenty-live millions ol dollars. As it is not shown in this instance that the appropriation in lavor ol relator was beyond the revenues of the year in which it was made, this court concludes that no debt was contracted in violation of the con - stitution.
APPEAL from the Superior District Court, parish of Orleans. Hawkins, J.
Breaux, Fenner <£• Hall, for relator and appellant.
A. R Field, Attorney General, and Charles S. Bice, for defendant and interve-nor, appellee.

Opinion:
Wyly, J.
The relator appeals from the judgment refusing to make peremptory the mandamus sued out by her to compel the Auditor to issue to her a warrant of the State for thirty-five hundred dollars, the amount appropriated to her by act No. 118 of the acts of 1874.
The State intervened and set up the invalidity of the claim, because at the time the act was passed the debt of the State exceeded twenty-five millions of dollars,, and no debt could be contracted by reason of the amendment of the constitution limiting the State debt to said amount.
On the first of April, 1874, when act No. 118 was passed, granting or appropriating thirty-five hundred dollars to the relator, the State debt largely exceeded the constitutional limit. Therefore the claim set up by the relator is invalid, because the statute creating it was unconstitutional. The relator, however, contends that this statute passed for her relief was a necessary expense of the State, and whether it was or not was a question resting alone in the. discretion of the General Assembly, and that the judicial department can not interfere with the exercise of the discretion.
If the principle contended for bo true, the constitutional provision limiting the State debt to twenty-five millions of dollars would be meaningless and without effect, because in the exercise of legislative discretion the General Assembly could go on from time to time increasing the State debt beyond the limit of twenty-five millions of dollars. •
We apprehend that no discretion is involved in the matter regarding the power of the General Assembly to create a debt after the limit fixed in the constitution has been reached. It was reached when the statute for the relief of the relator was enacted creating a debt of thirty-five hundred dollars.
In declaring void an enactment violating this provision of the constitution the court is merely performing a duty which in no manner relates to the powers confided solely to the discretion of the General Assembly.
Judgment affirmed.