The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-02-02
CRY HALL, NEW ORLEANS, [
January %, 1869. I


Kaiser, 0Brien, Pessou, Prados and Shields.
Mr.. Prados, chairman of the committee ofinqury
into the matter of accepting the market notes
with the city money clause, reported as follows:
To the Honorable President members Board
Aldermen
Gentemen-Your special committee, appointed
to inquire into the matter OF the public markets
lately adjudicated by the city controller. as well
into the contracts for the collection and safety
Of the revenues OF the same, entered into between
the mayor and the lessees, beg leave to report
That the best inquiries which they have been
able TO institute, have failed to satisfy them that
the controller made public announcement that
the markets would be leased out for city money.
This failure, to the mind Of your committee, is
osy Conscious that sass the o New
ries, approved December IL, 1867. in no way jus
tilted such an announcement Yet, your commit
tee think that they do not from the real state
of things, when they think that they have SUBJ
stsntial reasons tor reporting that, to question
privately put by some party then present. he
simply answered that "he knew no other money
than city money"
Tha. this want of knowledge existed and was
professed anteriory to the passage Of the ordi-
nance, prohibiting the city treasurer's receiving
into the treasury city money for any dues what
soever; but that the above mentioned ordinance,
under which said markets were sold, makes no
mention OF city money, and that, according to the
views of your committee, the controller, in the
face of positive ordinance, which does not even
imply discretionary power, and In more scrupu-
lons inquiry into just such powers as that ordi.
nance confers upon him, could not have consider
ed himself authorized TO determine for what spe-
oies of currency the markets had to be sold.
Viewing this phase Of the question in that light,
your committee strongly incline to the conviction
that his ground was mistaken. and that his action
in the premises cannot be binding on the city.
The action Of the mayor, in signing the respec.
tive contracts, with the stipulation that the pay
eNf 10 els Arrs
eral lessees should be made in city money, has
engaged the serious attention of the com.
mittee.
1t has been so much the more seriously taxed
as, from the official correspondence between his
honor and the city attorney, your committee eX'
perience some difficulty 10 avoiding the concla-
sion that the insertion of the intrusive words,
city money" if not the result OF official solicita
ton, was certainly ratified by free consent,
which your committee, with the best of desires,
cannot consider as entirely consulting the inter.
ests of the community.
Strangely does the fact seem 70 have been over
looked that the ordinance No. 1884, obligatory
alike on controller and mayer, and leaving to
neither decisive powers, warranted no such dis
elimination as was first conceived by the city con-
troller and subsequently exercised by his honor
the mayor, through what your committee are re.
lnctantly constrained 10 consider as an erroneous
use of his signature, attached to the contracts.
Still more strangely does the fact stubborn
ly meet the inquiry of your committee when
tney come, additionally, to consider that an
ordinance introduced by the finance COM
mittee. and providing thst the market
lessees should be INDUCED until the 10th January,
1859, to pay their notes, in city money. was voted
down in the Board of Assistant Aldermen.
In another degree of strangeness has another
fact suggested itself to your committee.
That fact is that in the wording of the contracts
between the sales and sdjudications, made by the
city controller on the 18th of December, 1865 and
the 3lst day of the same month and year. when by
record the contracts were ratified, the ordinance
prohibiting the collection of any but United States
currency had been passed, and that still on the
3lst day Of December, 1868, the eve of the day
when the contracts were signed-when the ordi-
nance prohibiting the endorsement of any values
but United States money was about to be carried
into operation-the several contracts were ap-
proved by one city official, "ss to FORM" and cou-
clnded by another for reasons which. beyond the
opinion Of the former functionary, the committee
have no means to ascertain.
StraDgest of all, however, is that other fact to
which the duty imposed upon your committee has
drawn them in the prosecution Of their inquiry.
printed copy Of one of the contracts, which
your committee annex pro lorna, and supposed
TO be in sll essentials like the other contracts,
shows that, on the 3lst Of December, 1868, for q
consideration of s67 $50, it was entered into be
tween one of the lessees to whom were adjudi-
Gated the Poydras Market stalls and the mayor of
the city of New Orleans, under and by virtue of
the resolution No. 1889, approved December 30,
toned, is in print, but when your committee in
their investigation come to the clause which pro-
vides for the cash payment Of s56l2 the first in.
stallment for the fret day of January, 1869, just
one day before the signature of the contract,
and when the greenback ordinance was to go
into operation, they find an acknowledgment Of
cash receipt and nothing more of q definite char
acter. Proceeding further, in reference to the
monthly notes to be paid for the balance of the
leases your committee find that, by manuscript
ms In laf ad in tha al
act that the obligations OF the lessees are to be
met in city money.
This stipulation is the result. as ii is now a.
sumed to be, first, of the expression of a want
of knowledge of the controller "of any money but
city money" then, of his honor the mayors doub
whether the expression of the controllers igno-
rance Of any other than city money did not bind
the city to accept that money and lastly, the
dispelng of that doubt by the opinion of the city
attorney, addressed to the chairman of the
finance committee, THAT the city is bound to re-
ceive its notes from the contractors, and its inser
ton is implied in the contract"
With due Difference to the authority of such an
opinion your committee cannot omit animadyert-
ing on that, which, to them, is presented with
some measure Of difficulty. The recorded facts
show that, already on the 3lst day of December,
1865, the city attorney, by the opposition Of his
signature, bad recognized the contract "as to its
form 81 that the mayor by like act of signature,
on the same day ratified the stipulations and
terms, which authorized the payments Of the
credit cote in "city money!" and yet, in what
would seem to be q conclusion OF the ques-
ton, your committee find his honor the
mayor, on the 9th day of January, 1869, calling
on the city attorney for opinion as to the pro.
priety and legality of the insertion in the notaria
deed of the city money addition, which already
appears in that deed, duly approved by the city
attorney and finally closed by the mayors sigma.
ture, on the 3lst day of December 1865.
On the 18th day of January 1863. your COM
mittee also find the answer Of the city attorney
suggesting to his honor the mayor that :" he can
give the necessary instructions on the subject to
The city notary, so to have Incorporated in the
notes and contracts the statement that the notes
are payable in city currency"
In view of this opinion, which is entitled
to great respect, and which, &c post fdcto,
namely, 1lth Of January, 1869, seems to have con-
frmed the mayor in an act which, in the opinion
of your committee, he had perfected on the 3lst
of December 1868, your committee might be abb
solved from further remarks, did not the contract
give additional weight to the considerations to
which they have deemed il their duty respectfully
TO invite the attention of the board. By that
which in the silence of the ordinance, your com.
mittee would consider ss an Interpolation, the
lessees are favored with the privilege of paying
their promissory notes in city money, while in
1;rr al ut rfu