The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-10-01
BOARD OF ASSISTANT ALDERMEN.

Sept 20, 1868.
The board met pursuant to adjournment ; pres
ent: President KesrDy and Messrs. Rose
Walker, Pemberton, Camp, Sturcken, Grandpre
Fisher, Morphy. Pandely, Wynne, Farrell and
Breen.
The reading of the minutes of last meeting wa,
on motion of Mr.. Psndely dispensed with.
The following communication from the mayor
together with the accompanying resolution, were
read and laid over; M
MAYoRALTY OF New ORLEANS, I
City Hall, Sept. 20, 1868.
To the honorable Common Council
Gentlemen-I have the honor TO transmit here.
with copy of a resolution passed by the Board
OF Consolidated Commissioners, and would res.
pectfully request that ordinance No. 1913 be
amended IN accordance 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 restriction as is
expressed by the ordinance enacted by your hon.
orabie body. Very respectfully,
JOHN r. CONWAY, Mayor.
Resolced, That this board unanimously request
the Common Council to amend section second of
ordinance No. 1913 entitled an ordinance aathor-
ling the issue Of city bonds and providing for the
payment 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 treasurer
was read and laid on the table:
TREAsuRER's OFFICE,
City Hall,
New Orleans, September 20, 1885,.
To the Honorable the Common Council:
Ger17enefa-Th law makes it the duty of the
city treasurer to hand over to the assistant city
attorney for collection all bills for taxes remain
ing unpaid after expiration of the time allowed
by citation to delinquents.
1t appears that the citation issued by my pre-
dpCpSsOr Mr. HnWalI Wa mada Gaa
stItution of 1858 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 re-
ferred to by Mr.. Howell in his citation had no ex.
istence at the time it issued, and therefore the
citation Is not legal and binding.
have no disposition to throw any obstacle in
the way Of the assistant city attorney, but am
advised that If ! do turn over the tax bills to
him at time when the law does not authorize
me to do go, / may, together with my sureties,
eventually become liable.
In the absence Of any law, ! am without authority
to issue new citation, and am in process of col
lection of such taxes without charge or cost to
delinquents. My only object Is, if you deem
should transfer the bills to the assistant city
attorney, to ask that be so instructed by you,
as if SO be, and my sureties will be relieved
Very respectfully, W. s. MOUNT.
Treasurer.
The treasurer's report for the week ending
September 26 1865, showing receipts $40, 100 "A !;
expenditures ,l3l 10; balance on hand s32l,.
27S GA, was referred to the finance committee.
The following communication from the city
attorney was received:
OFFICE CRY ATTORNEY.
Room No. Ii, City Hall,
New Orleans. Sept. 20, 1858.
To the Honorable the Board of Assistant Alderman:
Geittemell-I have received the resolution to
annul certain contracts to clean the streets 10 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, ii
appears TO me that the real question is not as to
but whether or not any such contracts as those hose
described have any legal existence.
The history of this difficulty shows that in the
passage of the ordinances to make contracts to
clean these streets, all the forms of Law are OBJ
served, and had not Gen. Sheridan issued the
order No. l22. in August last. the contracts would
now be in force and no question could arise as to
their legality. The only point really existing in
this case is as to the power of Gen. Sheridan to
control the action of the council. IL he was au-
thoriZed to destroy ordinances by expressing his
dissent then the alleged contracts were utterly
destroyed by Order No. l22, and no action of
Mayor Conway could revive them. #, on the
other hand, Gen. Sheridan exceeded his authority,
the contracts were never annued, and the act of
the mayor could add nothing TO their strength or
validity. So, with reference to the proposed
action of this honorable body; if Gen. Sheridan
destroyed these contracts, no action of yours is
necessary If he did not destroy them, no resolu-
tion of the Common Council can annul or cancel
them, for it is not within the power of any legs-
lative body to snnul or destroy contracts. They
are vested rights-protected by both the Consti
tuition of the United States aud the Constitution
OF Louisiana. All, then, turns on the extent of
power possessed By General Sheridan in August,
1867.
1t has been commended that, even under the
powers vested in the commanding general by the
acts of 1867, known as the reconstruction ACTS he
could not cancel contracts. the Supreme Court of
Louisiana lin case in which rehearing, how
ever, has been grantedl has decided that he had
authority to cancel agreements made by legisla-
tive bodies within his district. But, in my opin-
ion, the act 10 question was not an act cancelling
a contract, but one preventing the action of the
council from becoming contract. His powers
we're such that no resolution of the council could
become law without his assent, either expressly
or implicitly given; when his objection was with
held or not expressed, his assent was presumed.
AS therefore, his consent was necessary to the
validity of these resolutions in order to create per-
feet contract, and as that consent was expressly
withheld, the inchoate contracts were never con-
summated. In the case to which have referred
above, (0'Hara VS.. the city the Supreme Court
says: The powers granted by this and by the
supplemental act ofthe 23d March, 1867, are quite
trcts with a paramount supervisory power over
the civil jurisdiction Of the State and controlling
influence over all the administrative functions of
State officers" The civil jurisdiction exercised
by State and municipal authority was not sus-
pended but made subsding to military rule. The
action Of the city council in this view of the state
of things, was not paramount and exclusive, but
limited and subordinate. The civil jurisdiction, it
is clear, was intended to be controlled by military
power" If the reconstruction acts are constitu.
uonal, the authority of Gen. Sheridan to annul the
act of the council must, under this decision, be
conceded. His order, No. l22. cancelled the reso-
lutions adopted by the council to contract with
0'Hsra and others to clean the streets in the
second and other wards, and no act of any official
can revive them.
My conclusion is that the resolution now under
consideration is unnecessary, as it proposes to an
null contracts long since annulled, or, in my opin
ion, that never had existence.
If, however, the Common Council conclude
that some action is, under the circumstances,
necessary, it appears to me that resolution ex-
pressing dissent from The views and action Of his
honor the mayor, would answer all legal purposes.
Respectfully, HENRY J. LEoyY.
City Attorney.
Under suspension of the rules Mr.. Breen Of.
fered the following resolution, which was adopted
with the following vote
n. rv~fr- ~ -.