New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-12-08

These grave consequences of abdicated
duty are attributed to the sequestration of
city revenues by city creditors. We are
neither disposed to retort uppn those who
charge the public endorsements upon
the Republican party nor to rejoice that
such crisis intimates the errors of the
city administration. It will not have
been forgotten-at least by the public
creditor-that an attempt to divert the
fund pledged to the public debt was ar
rested many months since by timely
suggestion of the personal consequences
to the Administrators and their securities.
Soon afterward there was proposed an at
tractive plan for converting the city obi
cations into lottery tickets. There has
been an application of revenues to the
payment of the outstanding floating debt,
and these acts seem to have provoked
either the anger or the distrust of the
public creditor. The publication on
yesterday of Recommendation of
the premium bond plan, simultaneously
with the announcement by the Common
Council that they must suspend payment
on the Waterworks and draining ma
chimes, may perhaps have tendency to
force the creditors into the only adjust
ment proposed, but we do not see how
the revenue system of New Orleans could
be so reformed as to relieve its tax
payers, even by the solution proposed.
The issue presented by the resolution of
the board affects the safety and subsist-
ence of the people. They can not await
an adjustment which must involve the
assent of minors aud aliens. The be-
ginning of the. next year is at hand, and
an estimate of the need and resources of
the city should be prepared. This can
not be well done unless the obligations of
the city shall have beeu perfectly ascer-
tanned.
1t would seem to us that if budget
were reported in which any tax for the
payment Of the public creditor were
omitted, the question would be brought
squarely before the public creditors.
Granting that the federal court confirms
its order restraining the Treasurer from
paying out certain funds, due at present,
the question would arise can the federal
court compel the Common Council to
levy a tax for the payment of the public
creditor, principal or interest The act of
the Legislature of 1856 or 1856, requiring
the Common Council to levy such tax,
would be quoted of course. Suppose the
Common Council assigns reasons, or no
reason at ALL why it declines to comply
with that command, what then? The Treas
urer is subject to a fine if he does not
apply the funds, ,ohen collected, in pay
ment of the debt. There is no penalty
upon the municipal legislators for failing
to impose this tax. Can the courts, re-
garding the legislation as part of con-
tract, compel, by mandamus or other
wise, the representatives of the people to
impose tax upon the people? This is the
question the court must meet. 1t is thus
the question may be brought before the
people of New Orleans.
Should the Common Council entertain
doubts of the opinion of their constituent
taxpayers, or with their authority, they
can ask an act of authority, poll to be
held for paying or abating the tax.
If we assume that the Council can not
be compelled to lay this tax, the creditors
will be compelled to negotiate compro-
mise, and the tax may be laid according
to agreement.
We have no call to make an argument
on the situation, but it must be remem-
bered that the city has, in regard to the
anti-war debt, an equity of great weight.
The anti-war debt reposed in great part
upon what was at that date taxed as prop
erty. The same event which impaired
this resource affected likewise the COM
mercial reliance upon agricultural pro-
ducts. The levee protection was Incl
dentally destroyed and q general tax has
been imposed to replace these works. We
make no reference to changes in the
course of trade by the construction Of
lines of transportation rival to the river.
The city is no longer able to meet its
former obligations without such rate of
taxation as tends to impair the induce
ments to live or labor here.
One State in the Union has made this
very case ground for reducing the tax
levied in payment of the public creditor.
That State has asserted diminution of
more than $4)0, 900, 900 in the subjects of
taxation as the result of the war. It is
understood that the creditors have &C.
guessed in such reduction. The State Of
Louisiana, on behalf of the taxpayer of
the city in common with others, has as
serted an inability to meet the obligations
to the public creditor, and has abated the
rate of taxation for the public debt by re-
ducing the public obligations.
We merely recite this equity. It may
be for the city government to give reasons
why they will not levy next year for the
face Of this city debt, or omit to do SO
without reason assigned. Can any court
compel the representatives of the people
of New Orleans to impose tax2 Can it
be done by mandamus? Courts may in
tervene, as courts have interviewed, and
order the executive officers of a govern.