New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1868-10-01
cITY EoUNcIL--oFFiclAL,
e BoAR4eR Ass1sTANr ALDERMEN


BOARRe AssIsTANT ALDERMEN
Rerular session.
Ts, Cry Hall, NEW ORLEANS, |
September 20, 1868.
The, Board met pursuant to adjournment;
present.: Ptesident Kearny and Messrs.
Rose, Wakes, Pemberton, Camp, sturcken,
Grandpre, Fisher, Morphy, Pandely, Wynre,
Farrell and Breen.
The reading of the minutes of last meet
ing was, on motion of Mr.. Pandely, dis.
pensed with.
The following communication from the
Mayor, together with the accompanying
resolution, were read and laid over:
MAYoRALrY OF NEW ORLEANS
City Hall, September g. 1853.
To the Honorable Common Council:
GENTLEMEN-I have the honor to trans.
nit herewith a copy of resolution passed
ers, and would respectfully request that
ordinance No. 1913 be amended In accord
ance with said resolution. The committee
who were charged with the negotiation of
the loan are of the opinion that the act of
the Legislature contemplated no such re-
striction as is expressed by the ordinance
enacted by your honorable body.
Very respectfully,
JOHN R. CONWAY, Mayor.
ResOlged, That this board unanimously
request the Common Council to amend Bec-
tioL second of ordinance No. 1913, entitled
an ordinance authorizing the issue of city
bonds and providing for the pryment OF
same, by inserting in lieu of the words "to
sell at not less than par" the words "to
negotiate
The following communication from the
ONva, IL Al. IL
TREASURER OFFICE, CITY HALL,
New Orleans, September ~, 1866.
To the Honorable the Common Council:
GENrLEMEN-The law makes it the duty of
the City Treasurer 10 hand over to the As
sistant City Attorney for collection all bills
for taxes remaining unpaid after expiration
of the time allowed by citation to delln-
euents.
1t appears that the citation issued by my
predecessor, Mr.. Howell, was made after
the Constitution of 1868 had gone into
operation, and therefore after the several
District Courts of New orleans had become
defunct and new courts organized in their
place; so that the courts referred to by Mr.
Howell in his citation had 10 existence at
the time it issued, and therefore the citation
is not legal and binding.
have no disposition to throw any OBJ
stacle in the way of the Assistant City At.
torney, but am advised that if do turn
over the tax bills to him at a time when the
law does rot authorize me to do so, may,
together with my sureties, eventually be-
come liable.
In the absence of any law, am without
authority to issue a new citation, and am
in process of collection of such taxes with
out charge or cost to delinquents. My only
object is, if you deem should transfer the
bills to the Assistant City Attorney. to ask
that l be so instructed by you as if so be
and my sureties will be relieved from all
ultimate responsibility.
Very respectfully.
w. S. MOUNT, Treasurer.
The Treasurer's report for the week end
ing September 26, 1868, showing receipts
SIC, ,l30 "A; expenditures $72, 131 10; balance
on hand 1921, 27s 6i, was referred to tn
Finance Committee.
The following communication from thu
City Att orney was received:
OFFICE CRY ATTORNEY
Room No. l3 Oily Hat,
New Orleans September %, 1863.
To tire Honorable Board of Assistant Aldermen:
GENTLEMEN-.I have received the resolution
to annul certain contracts to clean the
streets in the Second Third and other
Wards, which were recently signed by His
| Honor, Mayor Conway, and on which my
opinion is asked.
According to the conclusion to which |
have come, after careful examination OF
this case it appears to me that the real ques
tlon is not as TO the power of the Council to
annul those contracts, but whether or not
any such contracts as those described have
any legal existence.
The history of this difficulty shows that
in the passage of the ordinances to make
contracts 10 clean these streets, all
! the forms of law are observed and had not
(hanarol 0aF, 4bn A,,,N NJ
in August last, the contracts would now be iI
force and no questions could arise as to theil
| legality. The only point really existing is
| this case Is as to the power of General
| Sheridan to control the action of the Coun-
Gil. If he was authorized to destroy ordi
nances by expressing his dissent, then the
| alleged contracts were utterly destroyed by
| order No. l22, and no action of Mayor Con
] way could revive them. If, on the othel
hand, General Sheridan exceeded his au
| thority, the contracts were never Rnnulled
and the act Of the Mayor could add nothins
to their strength or validity. So with refer
ence to the proposed action of this honor
able body-if General Sheridan destroyed
| these contracts, no action of yours is neces.
sary; if he did not destroy them, no rcsolu
tion of the Common Council can annul Of
cancel them, for it is not in the power o
| any legislative body to annul or destroy con
tracts. They are vested rights-protecteC
by both the Constitution of the United
States and Constitution of Louisiana. All
then, turns on the extent of power pos
| sessed by General Sheridan in August, 1867
1t has been contended that, even unde
the powers vested in the Commanding Gen
eral by the acts of 1867, known as the re
construction acts, he could not cancel con
tracts. The Supreme Court of Louisiana
lin case in which a rehearing, however
has been granted) has decided that he hat
authority to cancel agreements made by le
glslative bodies within his district. But, il
my opinion, the act in question was not al
act canceling contract, but one prevent
ing the action of the Council from becom
ing a contract. His powers were such tha
no resolution of the Council could become
a law without his assent either expressly Of
impliedly given; when his objection wa
withheld or not expressed, his assent was
presumed. As, therefore, his assent wa
necessary to the validity of these resolu
tions in order to create a perfect contract
and as that consent was expressly with
held, the ineohate contracts were neye
consummated. In the case to whiel
have referred above (0Hara va
the city, the Supreme Court says
The powers granted by this and by tn
supplemental act of the twenty-third o.
March, 1867 are quite ample, and seem t.
clothe the commanders of districts with
paramount supervisory power over the civi
Jurisdiction OF the State, and o oofatrolin!
influence over all the administrative fune
tlons of State officers. ''The civil juris
diction exercised by State and munlcipa
authority was not suspended, but made sub
siding to military rule. The action OF tn
City Council, in this view OF the state 0
things, was not paramount and exclusive
but limited and subordinate. The civil juris
dictlon, 1t Is clear, was intended to be con