New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-07-03

order, and depleted credit bordering &
bankruptcy. To relieve the corporation
new charter Was granted. The thirty. mint
section directed the Council to choose
bank to be Administrator of the Floatin
Debt Of the city. The Administrator so al
pointed is required to act until the who
floating debt shall be liquldated and extir
guished. The fortieth section directed til
Administrator of Public Accounts, who
tho auditing officer of the city, to prepal
and furnish the Administrator of the Floa
ing Debt detailed statement of all the pas
due obligations of the city as constituted b
the act. The language OF the clause of tn
section is as follows: IA full and cOrreC
statement of all the maturing obliga
tions of the city at the date of the passag
| of this act, to- wit: Of all final judgments
warrants, registered certificates and unre
deemed city notes used as currency" Tn
| charter then provides that the Administra
tor of the Floating Debt shall issue certif
Gates in conformity with this statement t,
the holders of debts, which certificates ar,
to bear seven per cent interest, and are pay
able out of the proceeds of three millions o
bonds authorized to be issued and sold.
The return of the respondent is, Al
has been seen. that he has no authority to
place the debts known as back pay rolls
upon the statement to be prepared by him
because the enumeration of Judgments
warrants" "certifcates' and .'city notes.
was intended to include the entire floating
debt to be funded and to exclude pay
rolls.
The relator insists that this construction
would defeat the object of the law, and is
inadmissable; that the intention of the
Legislature was to provide for funding "all
the matured oblig ations of the city," aud
and that il the back pay rolls are not in
cluded in the statement that end will not
be attained. He insists also that pay rolls
may be included in the terms warrants
and registered certificates" without violat.
ing the meaning of those terms.
While I admit the uniform correctness of
the rules of Interpretation laid down in
the able brief furnished by counsel for
relator, am still constrained to
think the Interpretation which he
seeks to put upon the language of section
forty is forced. 1t seems to me, from read.
ing the section, that the trainers in abund-
ance OF caution first mentioned as debts to
be included in the statement. "all the
that there might not be a mistake. specified
what they meant, to wit: '..all final judg-
ments, warrants, registered certificates and
unredeemed city notes used as currency
The terms warrants" and Registered Ger
tifCates" have q well known meaning which
would be violated by including within their
Specification the term "pay rolls" OF these
back pay rolls, there are, as respondent tes-
titles, S463, 1888. 1t would seem that the
Legislature would scarcely omit such an
item by mistake.
But with this view, We are brought face to
face with the question as to the constitu-
tional authority of the Legislature to defer
the unpaid wages OF city employees to other
obligations.
The wages of labor are privileged debts
under the law. In cOns0nance with this
rule the Council of the city of New Orleans
adopted an ordinance, August IA, 1856 de-
claring hat the salaries of officers and other
employees of the city should be paid in pref
erence over other claims of what nature 60
ever. Leovy's Digest, p. SO.
From and after the passage Of that ordi-
nance, every person employed by this city
contract that his wages should be paid by
preference. The provision OF the charter,
therefore, directing that three millions of
of the city-shall be sold and
the proceeds applied to the payment OF
other Obig atoms in preference to past due
salaries and wages, impsirs the obligation of
! contract.
This is one of those cases in which courts
ire forced, in the protection of the rights of
citizens, to consider legislative provisions
7iolative of such rights as null.
The substantial relief which the relator
Gems to be entitled to is such an order as
will require the respondent not to give
reference to other debts in the preparation
# the statement of the floating debt re.
uired to be made as aforesaid.
The mandamus must issue as prayed for;
espondent to pay costs.
rhe alaurhterhonso CaaA-The Ruae Hov,
Contenpt Made Absolute.
State of Louisiana vs.. William Pagan ct
ls.-ln this case Judge Dibble yesterday
endered the following decision:
In this case the rule upon the defendants,
AIKEN by the Attorney General, to show
ause why they should not be punished for
ontempt, has for its object the enforce
aent Of the writ of Injunction obtained by
he State when the suit was instituted. To
Understand the issue presented it is neces-
airy to recur to the history of the litiga-
ion; but the facts are so familiar that they
iced not be repeated here.
The action was brought by the Attorney
General to enforce q compliance with act
10. liz of the Legislature of 1869, entitled
AN act to protect the health of the city of
Vew Orleans. to locate the stock landing
md slaughterhouses," and TO incorporate
The Crescent City Live Stock Landing and
Company The. Defend
ants were epjoined to that end; the Su-
)reme Court, on appeal, affirmed the de.
Vision OF the court below, making the in
JUNCTION perpetual, and sustained the con-
'tltutlonality of the act, and the authority
IL the Attorney General, to institute the suit
as he did.
1t seems that pending the appeal the in
uncuon was not obeyed by the defendant. |
These proceedings are now had with the |
view of compelling obedience to the writ.
The suit was instituted ia the Fifth Dis |
rict Court, but under the Provisions of the |
act creating this court, it was transferred,
In answer to the rule the defend ants first |
sought to show that the Attorney General ia
from taking these proceedings by
reason of an agreement, which he alleged to |
have made with defendants, not to Enforce |
he injunction until the final disposition OF
The cause upon the writ of error taken to |
,he Supreme Court of the United States.
1t appears that there were a large number
IF suits before several of the District Courts
If the parish between the company created
,y the act aforesaid, aud the various persons
who were contrasting the validity Of the
aw. At length the several counsel entered
ntO a written agreement to take six GER
ain cases to the Supreme Court of the State
q order to determine the controversy. This
ase Is one of the six selected.
1t was written in the agreement that all
,ther cases between the parties should be
tayed until the final decision in these suits
~ the Supreme Court of the State of Lou
siana, and to abide the result, so far as
practicable, of the final decision in any or
IL of the six cases herein named. The At. |
orney General did not sign this agreement,
tut the defendants offered oral proof TO |
how that he CONCUR d in the same, and |
{ least taci,ly agreed not to enforce this in
nnction until these questions could be
nally determined by the Supreme Court OF
be United States.
This proof failed. The Attorney General
lade no such agreement; but, in truth, if
he language of this agreement is to receive
g ordinary meaning, the PLAINTIFF in error
re estopped from prosecuting their writ. I