New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-08-25
THE wATBwoRKs oRDIEAsoE.

poSitlOn OF tne matter tnat was tnen anO
there enacted into law of the corpora
ton, and the manner in which it was
done. As to the ordinance itself, that is
Objectionable, because it is too indefinite,
both in the improvements which it sug-
| gests and in the security which it takes
against waste and improvidence. 1t is
further Objectionable as conflicting with
| article forty-seven of the charter, which
PROHIBITS the city from contracting any
| Indebtedness beyond one hundred thou
sand dollars, without providing in the
same ordinance that creates the obligation
for the positive payment of the indebted
mass within ten years. Suppose we try
the measure under discussion by these
tests.
And first, as to the lack of security,
the. Council has provided for the issu-
ance of two and half million dollars
worth of bonds, the proceeds from the
sale of which are to be deposited with
/, the Fiscal Agent of the city, subject to
payments for improvements to be made
upon the 'Waterworks Of the corporation
Assuming that these bonds will be sold,
the city will then possess a fund in the
fiscal agency equal to the amount for
which they were disposed of, say two
millions of dollars. The ordinance makes
no provision for any additional security
which the de- ositary is to give, nor does
expenditure in experiments here and
there; nor does it require the agency to |
pay any interest on this large amount of |
idle capital thus left to its use and con-
troll And we all know how possible it is
to squander actual cash upon rash ad-
ventures, and how easy it is for fund
to be diverted from its original purpose
to some new scheme not contemplated }
by its originators. In not providing
against these evils the ordinance is GER
-ainly defective, and as it is the basis of
ne. entire transaction, the friends of the
measure will discover herein a cogent
'eason why little further delay might
lave been profitable to the popularity of
heir favorite project.
The conflict between the ordinance and
he charter is not so easily reconciled as
he Mayor suggested, for while the ar
icles of the former seem to make provi-
ion for the payment of the bonds, IN con-
ormity with the requirements of the lat
er, they do not really accomplish that
ecessary purpose. Why? Simply be-
ause the setting apart of the revenues of
he Waterworks, and the execution of a
aortgage upon the property itself, will I
OF be admitted as positive security in !
lvor of the bonds. 1t is more than prob (
bic that the provision thus made is '
mple, and more than ample, to meet the 7
but, then, unforeseen con- i
ngencies may arise to diminish the value 2
the rents and the worth of the proper
:. Suppose the expenditures consume !.
lie revenues (for we can not wonder that
lie Council intends to lock up the entire q
ceipts for ten years., where is the pay Il
ent to come from, except in the sale of h
e mortgaged works? This is the least p
rcible argument against the ordinance, a
practical sense; but it originates a Il
gal difficulty that the Mayor did not sur Il
cunt on Tuesday.
The author of the ordinance evidently =
t that its weakest point consisted in its y
lure to provide positively for the re- y
mption of the bonds, else he would :,
t have Inserted the clause which con- 70
nplates the issuance of a mortgage M
ainst the Waterworks property. The %
~ provision authorizing the creation of lie
} lien admits the possibility of deficit cl
the revenues; and this admission, m
de on the face Of the ordinance itself, nc
only establishes a presumption that a.
pairs the value of the bonds, but it pro- -
es for the actual extension of the term :,
7ond the period of ten years, for it SUBJ az
is the holder of the security to the ne a.
sity of litigating for the foreclosure of TIE
mortgage after the term established
law has expired.
t will be seen by what has been ad- s s,'
ICED above, that we do not assal the in
nit OF the ordinance, nor oppose the a ail
eral plan contemplated by its pro- in
ons. We are deeply interested in the be
ter of providing an ample supply of as
er for the city of New Orleans, indif-
mt how this is done, so it is accom- he
he'd in the best and most economical wa
: The question is too important to pu
dealt with as a speculation or with -,
te, and the Republican party is too In
atly interested in the success of a ba,
per plan.to allow US to remain silent Be,
lie mistake is being made. If the Dis
neil had submitted to delay, per- yes
S the objections which exist as to the rec
sure that was adopted might have tiol
4 explained and corrected. At any spe
, no specific harm could have resulted. acc
the members who voted to sustain nay
existing ordinance could have still ~.
ID to carry it through if they were Wa
l satisfied that it was the best plan in I
could be devised. wo,
7
THE HOUSE OF REFUGE CASE, eve
'e can not regard the result of the in ing
lgation in the House of Refuge case aoo