New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-02-20
AN INQUIRY MTo THE sANCITY OF CITY
R0NDS

; a head perfectly horizontal on the CUES
tons Of public debt and taxation.
In recent article two points are mad
Of much signifcance:
/. That the reformers Of all classe
: have failed to effect a material reduction
in the current expenses of the city.
2. That the reiormers 'spare only thu
bondholders. That is to say. ''the hold
ers Of the city bonds. and the brok
ers. whose fraudulent operations have
plunged the city into all the horrors o
bankruptcy"
!. is JUS: to the Bee to say that it is ex
tremely impartial in its condemnation O.
ali past admins trations under which these
bonds have been emitted. 1t is extremely
direct in saying that the present Legis
iature has offered to do for the city what
it has done for the State; but that the pres.
ent City Council has not dared to ''touch
the sacred rights OF the brokers" and have
contented themselves with ''some little
reforms proposed by themselves. not
amounting to the half Of one per cent on
the rate of municipal taxation"
The limitation Of fiscal reform to de-
claration of inability to pay fifty per cent.
of the State bonds and the immense
burden still remaining induces US to in
quire in the most abstract manner into
tie proposition Of the Bee. There is GER
tainlr a striking contradiction i'll the
theory that while the rights of the public
creditor are sacred, the rights Of the prop
erty holder and taxpayer seem beyond the
protection Of their own government. The
| Bee says that France holds the doctrine
that ''the legitimacy Of capital should
yield to the legitimacy Of the soil. and
that the values Of real estate should be
respected above any other investment
whatever"
We propose then TO inquire. not upon
European example. bu: according to the
principles Of our own constitutional gov
eminent: ''Can the Legislature command
the Common Council to reduce the out
standing bonds of the city to the ability
of the taxpayer" In doing so. we shall
state the argument for and against. leay-
ing to inquiring minds to determine the
question.
The whole subiec! resolves itself into
one Of legislative power. The opposition
to this measure of relief resolves itself into:
]. A general denial of a power in the
Legislature to compel a corporation to
cancel its obligations.
3. That the city being a corporation.
suable under its charter. HAY be put in exc
cution and its public property seized for its
debts. It is ingeniously intimated that
what the Legisla tuye may do with one cor
poration it may do with Others. and might
so liberate the banks and their debtors
from their contracts.
The argument in favor Of this power may
be stated thus: The government of the
State holds its eminent domaiu-sllbject
to the provisions Of the federal constitu-
t;on--over the persons and property Of its
citizens. l: may. under that power. sub
jet persons and property to purposes Of
public utility" with adequate compeu-
sat;on to the party aggrieved.'
It is unde: this eminen. domain that
the Legislature has delegated to the COR
po.ation o: New Orleans the power to
levy and collect faxes and to contract
debt. /: is under the same authori.
ty tia: it has con5ecrated to public
utility" forty per cent Of tie property
belonging to holders Of the State
bonds. 1t was under tie same authority
that it was enacted that '.no liability,
either State. parochia! o. municipal, shall
existfor any debts contracted for Or il the
interest OF tue rebellion against the
United State, government. II such debts
were void and illegal pc" So. such pro-
vision was unnecessary: if they required
legal repeal. then i: was effected under
the exercise Of the power Of sovereignty
and public protection which we have
cited.
This power Of eminent domain will
then authorize the State to control any
corporation. as it might any single per-
son. The rights Of a corporation are the
the same III the eye OF the constitution
with the rights Of a single person. AS
srMing, then. that the State may control
municipal authority FOX the purposes of
public utility lei U, inquire whether .
proper occasion has arisen for the exercise
OF this power il the proposition under OK
animation:
The State find, it, citizens Lur!enei
with a deb: OF S25. 100000. incurred by
tie State. The citizens demonstrate TIA.
they are unable TO pay this debt. The
government. relieves them by sUspending
the application Of take, 70 the payment
.: interest. and orders he issue o: . re-
t:uced amour: .: bonds. Is tie only
terms o: Obligation which it WI. acls.owi-
edge toward the bond creditors. l: seems
70 be ain.t:e! :ha: TIE state may Go
this. lawfully. 1t can only be done
unie: The principle stated. (: coiGs-
.a:e> III private i.c.e.t: Q: tie bond.
holder . .u:rcs. .. pubic - ..:::: the
".oM. e.s.:.on !e.a... we suppose. tia:
he io.. cye.:.1: :.i t.:.e. :a..e It's
:i.a:. :o:.i.-.
-. "a; .: 49,. .a:.e citizen; a-e
s':hie.: :. alo.La. -: .'.:ga:.ci.,. con.