Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1869-05-31

| whom muy De hticctSu W tho ~
proposition ia rejected, and we offer e
submit the question to Judge Wright, whs
was then member of the Board, and Thu
propositian is also rejected, and the city
proposes two alternatives. We can SUI
the city, or the city will loan us S27o, OO'
in bonds, provided we will adopt thei'
view of the legal construction OF the con
tract, and Jet the city prosecute these
claims against the property owners to the
court Of last resort, before calling upon
the city.
This was bitter alternative, for II
would take as long to make the money
out of the city as the property owners
and the prospect of protracted litiga.
ton with 100000 of rapidly maturing
liabilities was overwhelming. We slept
ON it, or rather tried to sleep on it, for
three nights, and on the morning of the
fourth day, like Crockett's coon, "came
down; and we accepted the humiliating
attitude of borrowing from the city that
then and now owe us over half million
of dollars. The contract was modified
accordingly.
Now let us follow along the record and
see how lily this modified contract has
been kept by the city. One hundred and
seventy-fve bonds we're to be given us.
We needed them then. The Mayor had
business abroad and could not wait to
sign them, and gave us orders for the
bonds. Not being able to get the bonds
for weeks, and finally months, we sold oil
the orders but $4,000. The city did not
have the bonds to fill orders owned by
Messrs. Levy 4 Borg to the amount of
$35, 900 and the one held by us for $5Oee.
Levy & Borg protested us for non pay
ment. The city have since paid most OF
that order.
Well, this was doing better. 1t was
within $4,000 ofperforming, if we waive
the losses and inconvenience of time,
having unsaleable orders in place Of
marketable bonds.
But let US proceed. The original con-
tract placed upon the contractors no bur-
den or expense of prosecuting these
claims. This was burden that fell upon
the city. The modification only released
the city till it was determined under the
contract whether the property holder was
liable, leaving work of magnitude for
the city. 1t is an extraordinary amount
of labor. The City Attorney or no one
man is equal to it. The city makes no
provision at all for so great labor, and
we are compelled to let the matter drag
along or supply the defect; SO We hire an
experienced man to devote his whole
time to making abstracts of title, and able
counsel to devote much of their time to
aid Colonel Morgan In bringing and con-
Quoting these suits. We get up cost bonds
by the hundred, and pay court costs, ad.
vertising costs, etc., being out $4,000 for
legal services alone. Six or eight months
have elapsed, and yet very many of the
suits are 10. brought, and the work On
them just begun.
So that we firm that the city have in
no one thing performed the modified con-
tract, and the contractors are advised
that they can maintain an action against
the city to-day for over half million of
dollars, the suits against the property
owners constituting no bar to one against
the city; both could proceed to judgment
This being the situation, and having no
appetite for law suits, we propose to the
city to divide the claims; that if we can
not forget, we will at least forgive the
past if they will do a part of what is
right And though 100000 would not
make Us yhole, on ACCOUNT Of these many
breaches and latehes, still, in common
fairness, do something. And this IL our
petition that the Appeal calls "a nice
little scheme" and, with wonderful brav-
ado. threatens the Aldermen who may
vote fof the proposition with q notice
in these columus, and their names will
not be unknown"
We suppose there are those on the
Board Though we trust the minority is
small), and among them his Honor the
Mayor, who have not fully and oandidly
examined the subject in all its bearings,
and are honestly of the opinion that
while to grant our petition would be
right, still TO do so would be damaging to
the city credit To such we wish to say
that We have snch high conhdence that
this is an error, believing that when the
demand for scrip is doubled the price
will 90 up, that we hereby propose to
enter into written contract with the city
that in case our petition ahould meet
with favor and pass, we will take every
dollar Of city scrip now ont at figure
above its present market value. And to
make good this offer, will pledge enough
of the city debt to us TO cover every dollNr
cut land we suppose the city would call
this good security, whether anybody else
did or not) Nov, we submit whether
this is not a most practical way Of re-
moving all grounds Of their fear2 Now,
this would apply to alb scrip now out,
aud that which they give US on the propo-
sition we take at value above what IT,
can be sold for now; wait year before
putting it on the market, and then agree
to give the city the benefit Of any advance
there might be. SO that i. 10 Mathe-
natlcal demonstration that the city will
realize on what is out, and what we ask
them to put out, figure above its
present value.
But let Us look at this matter from the
standpoint Of the Mayors message, aud
suppose for the argument, as he does, that
the occasion has not yet arisen when the
contractors can legally call upon the city
for pay. Let us again adopt bis view Of
the law, close our ears to all the equities,
forget there is such thing az right and
wrong, and look at the question purely as