568 



LOUISIANA. 



the courts, in case the Funding Board rejected his 

 claim. Subsequently the authority of the Funding 

 Board was restricted by the supplemental funding act 

 of 1875, which prohibited the funding of certain class- 

 es of bonds until their validity was established by a 

 decree of the Supreme Court. The bonds mentioned 

 in said supplemental act constituted about one half of 

 the State debt. Hence the outstanding consols repre- 

 sent bonds adjudicated by the Funding Board or the 

 Supreme Court to be valid obligations of the State. 

 This adjudication is conclusive on the State. Hence 

 the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Manning 

 as its organ, in May, 1878, said: " We regard the faith 

 of the State as irrevocably pledged to the payment of 

 her consolidated bonds issued under the authority of 

 that act (1874), and to the payment of such other 

 bonds as may be issued under the sanction of the de- 

 cree we shall make herein. The contract with the 

 holders of these bonds is one which, in the language 

 of the constitutional amendment, the State can by no 

 means and in no wise impair." (State ex rel. Pacific 

 Railroad vs. Nicholls, Governor, 30 A., 986. In the 

 same case, page 981, the Court say the funding act was 

 approved January 24, 1874, and on the same day an 

 amendment to the Constitution was approved. "This 

 amendment has become a part of the Constitution by 

 its subsequent ratification oy the voters at the polls." 

 The Supreme Court of the State had already decided 

 in July, 1875, that "this amendment was adopted, 

 and it now forms part of the organic law of the State." 

 (27 A., 579, ForstalFscase.) 



The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case 

 of McComb vs. Board of Liquidation, say : u On the 

 day of passing this act [speaking of the funding act ot 

 1874] the General Assembly passed another act, pro- 

 posing to the people of the State an amendment to the 

 Constitution of the State, which was adopted at the 

 ensuing election." This case was decidedin October 

 term, 1875 (2 Otto, 531). The Nicholls General As- 

 sembly on the 12th of March, 1877, passed an act the 

 title of which is as follows : " An act to enforce effect- 

 ually the constitutional amendments proposed January 

 24, 1874, ratified at the general election held on No- 

 vember 2, 1874, relative to the State debt and the fund- 

 ing thereof; to protect the interests of the State and 

 the holders of the bonds issued by virtue of said amend- 

 ments ; for that purpose to amend and reenact an act, 

 . . . No. 3, approved January 24, 1874," etc. This 

 act is No. 58 or the regular session of 1877, approved 

 by Governor Nicholls, the first section of which pro- 

 vides " that act No. 3, approved January 24, 1874, 

 pages 39 to 42 inclusive, statutes of 1874, commonly 

 known as the funding bill, entitled ' An act,' etc. . . . 

 be and the same is hereby amended and reenacted as 

 follows," etc. 



Under these circumstances, the undersigned never 

 conceived it possible that any one would undertake to 

 assail the yahditv of the bonds issued in pursuance of 

 the provisions of" the act of 1874 and the constitutional 

 amendment of that year, on the grounds stated by the 

 committee. All departments of the State Government 

 had recognized the binding force of the funding act 

 and the constitutional amendment enforcing it. The 

 Supreme Court of the State on two occasions, and the 

 Supreme Court of the United States on one occasion, 

 expressly declared that the amendment was ratified by 

 the people of the State. The funding act has been ac- 

 cepted by the Supreme Court of the State as one of the 

 statutes of the State from the day of its passage to the 

 present moment. The creditors of the State were in- 

 vited to surrender the bonds held by them at a dis- 

 count of forty per cent., and accept in lieu thereof 

 the consols authorized by the legislation of 1874 ; the 

 process of funding the entire debt of the State under 

 that legislation has been going on undisturbed for five 

 years, and it may be said the funding is almost com- 

 plete. The Nicholls General Assembly, on the 12th 

 of March, 1877, so far from repudiating the legislation 

 of 1874, passed a law to amend and reenact the fund- 

 . ing bill and enforce the constitutional amendment. 

 Who now has the constitutional power to say that 



the act of 1874, with its contemporaneous constitutional 

 amendment, is not the law of the land so as to affect 

 contracts entered into under it ; or that it shall not re- 

 main so until those contracts are satisfied ? Any con- 

 trary declaration by this Convention will be disre- 

 garded by judicial tribunals. The undersigned are 

 not prepared to announce to the world that the State 

 of Louisiana refuses to recognize a contract which all 

 of its courts, as well as all the courts of the United 

 States if called on to enforce it, would not hesitate to 

 use the judicial power of the State or nation to enforce. 

 When a man refuses to pay debts recognized by the 

 courts of the country as legal, and to enforce which 

 they will exert their judicial power, it is said that ho 

 repudiates his debts. There is no reason why the 

 same terms should not be predicated of similar conduct 

 on the part of the State, except the desire to use diplo- 

 matic and euphuistic language when speaking of a 

 sovereign. The fact is, whether a Legislature be a 

 Legislature is a political question, and therefore it is a 

 question of force. The Legislature that is, and exerts 

 its authority to legislate, and which can enforce its 

 enactments, is the Legislature of the State. In this 

 country the Legislature of a State is that Legislature 

 whose laws the President of the United States will 

 enforce, if called on so to do by the Legislature if in 

 session, or the Governor of the State when the Legis- 

 lature can not be convened. This has been adjudged 

 many years ago, if adjudication were necessary. (Lu- 

 ther vs. Borden, 7 Howard, p. 42.) It is matter orhis- 

 tory that the President of the United States recognized 

 the Legislature of 1874, and would have enforced its 

 enactments if resisted. 



The report was signed by the following 

 members of the committee : Thomas J. Semmes, 

 D. Caffrey, Hugh Breeii, H. 0. Warmoth, M. 

 Cahen, G. Legardeur, Jr. One absent member, 

 McConnell, approved. These members were 

 stated to represent an assessed valuation of 

 $102,075,769. The report closed with the re- 

 commendation that a special committee of nine 

 should be appointed to ascertain whether or 

 not an equitable adjustment of the consolidated 

 debt of the State contracted under the legisla- 

 tion of the year 1874 can be effected. 



These reports were subsequently considered 

 by the Convention, and a debate ensued which 

 continued through several daily sessions. A 

 motion was then made that, for the purpose of 

 ascertaining definitely and making arrange- 

 ments to pay the trust fund due the Agricul- 

 tural and Mechanical College, the matter of the 

 State debt be recommitted to the special com- 

 mittee of eighteen on that subject, and that said 

 committee have full power to reconsider the 

 whole subject of the State debt. On a subse- 

 quent day the chairman reported back the ma- 

 jority report, with ari additional ordinance to 

 pay the trust fund of the Agricultural and 

 Mechanical College, amounting to $185,000. 

 A minority report was also presented, advising 

 that the principal of the debt be paid, with in- 

 terest at three per cent, for five years and four 

 per cent, afterward. A second minority re- 

 port was presented which advised that the debt 

 should be scaled to an amount just between 

 its highest and lowest market value since the 

 funding act, and to pay four per cent, in- 

 terest. 



On the next day (June 30th) a motion was 

 made to adopt the majority report. Then a 

 motion was made to substitute the minority 



