Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1875-04-20
AN 1MpnRrANT pECIsIoN.

The mills of the gods grind slow, but
grind exceeding small. 1t required
over a year to grind out through the
tedious process Of law a conclusion
which was so plain, simple and reasona-
BILE as to be clear to any unbiased mind
whether learned or unlearned in the law.
A decision was rendered yesterday by
Judge Heiskell, of the First Circuit
Court, which j%usti6es the position as
sulned by this journal over a year ago,
in regard to the interest fund of the city,
After continuing the discussion With
Equity, an able lawyer ofthe city, we
summed up the main issues and our
position as follows:
l. That past-due coupons should be
received in payment of the interest tax
assessed for the corresponding year.
2. That the interest fund should be
maintained inviolate.
3. That the coupons should be re-
deemed in the order of their maturity at
stated times, dollar for dollar.
A. That any other course is unlawful,
injurious to public faith and, above all,
unnecessary and denorslizing.
S. That the indefensible plea Of ne
cessity might be urged with equal pro-
priety in regard to the general tax, the
school tax or any other obligation as
sumed by the city.
These are plain, sensible propositions
by which we shall abide, feeling assured
that time will prove their s~oundness and
the great danger Of opening the door to
Reputation. A strict discharge of pub
lie obligations will tend to make men
more careful in creating future debts,
while Reputation promotes a spirit of
reckless extravaganza and abolishes the
distinction between right and wrong.
The shove appeared in the LEDGER on
the 9th of March, 1874, and now comes
Judge Heiskells decision, laying down
principles, if not identical in appliea-
tion, at least bearing in the anne direc-
ton. 1t is in the case of Thomas
Branch & Co. VS.. the City of Memphis,
/. NJ. Hill ct al, Sinking Fund Commits.
sioners. Petitioners set forth that the
commissioners have on hand a large
interest fund which they refuse to use in
taking up matured bonds out, and
that thess commissioners are buying
bonds not yet due in violation Of
law and the rights Of REALTORS. Judge
HeiskeIl sustained the petition and or
dered a peremptory randamus to issue.
This means that money collected under
Law for q specific purpose shall be so ap-
piled and cannot be diverted to any
other purpose. Colonel Hanson, the
City Attorney, admitted this and relieved
himself of any responsibility some time
ago by asking for additional counsel
The new city charter Is more specific
and positive upon such points, providing
in so many words that city indebtedness
shall in future be receivable for taxes il
kind for the corresponding year, beside
making all past Indebtedness, bonds ex
cepted. receivable up to January l, 1876
In Judge Heiskells decision occurs tn
following forcible and unmistakable lar
guAge:
The fund that they are using is sacre
to pay bonds as they fall due-and
they refuse, as it is admitted in this cas-
they have, to pay these bonds while du'
they baselv violated the law, and tn
mandate Of the court must compel con
pliance, though an ordinance Of the cit
is interposed for their protection. The
duty is plain and the ordinance futile
My conclusion on this branch Of tn
case therefore is, that it is the duty
the Sinking Fund Commissioners to pa
the bonds OF the city, as they maturr
out Of the funds in their hands.