The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-07-15
WHO Is RESPONSIBLE FOB THE CITY
DEBT?

:
1t is enormously stated that the late Admin
istrators increased the debt of the city by
million dollars.
December 81, 1872, or at the close OF Elan
ders' administration, there was bonded cit.
debt of about twenty-one millions and three
quarters, besides recorded floating debt o
81, IFS, 239, making total debt just lacking
of twenty. three millions 1922, 8l5, 1867. Thii
statement did not include the arrears for city
expenses of the last five or six months Of the
Flanders administration, which were Their
outstanding in the form of certificates Of
appropriation. The amount of these is un.
certain, but as that administration was
running on budget Of Sc. 961, 1881 for the year,
or S5S0,000 per month, it must have been
nearly two millions. The Wilt administra-
ton had further legacy from its predeces.
sor in the form of contested claims, 1907 suits
against the city being then pending, involv-
| ing claims to the amount of SO, 784, 681.
Claims to the amount of SILL 754 were con-
frmed, increasing the debt by that amount
The Louisiana National Bank as fiscal agent
| of the city, having advanced large sums for
the payment of outstanding certificates Of ap-
propri alton, the Administrators in 1871 were
obliged to issue to the bank $500, 900
in city bonds as collateral security
for advances made. These were not taken
into the debt statements of 1872, but in
1873. IA and rs they appear as a portion of
the bonded debt, and count against the Wilt
administration as an increase. There were
also in 1878, issued in or previous to 1872,
SIT, $50 of public school warrants, which
did not appear at all on the debt statement of
1872, which swells the debt assumed by Wilt
and friends to 500, 423, 708.
The history Of the citys debt shows these
remarkable facts: At the close of the year
1868 the debt was 50, 52l, 997; at the close of
1869 it was SIS, 1855, 4lO: at the close of 1870
it was SIS. 367, 1896; at the close of 1871, $19,.
398, 866; at the close of 1872, or the beginning
of the Wilt administration, $22, 423, 965, in
which was not counted certain unfunded but
certified claims, which brought the debt to
total of nearly twenty-three millions 1922,
815, OOO).
The city's expenditures at the close Of 1872
had increased in similar enormous ratio. In
1852 the city's property was assessed at a
valuation of s66, 63l 900. and her expenses
for that year were 81, 333, 900; in 1855 assess
ment ST., 128,OOO, expenses s2,9O5,OOO; in
1860 assessment s121, O3O, OOO expenses ST.
OBS, 600; in 1867 assessment $l39, O22, 900, ex-
penses &C. 37, 900; in 1869 assessment $127,-
942, 900, expenses 81, 9S6, 900; in 1871 assess
ment $l5S. 214,OOO, expenses s5,e34. 5O4; in
1872, with the same assessment, the city ex-
penses were by approved budget or official
estimate $685., 1881.
The Wilt administration, beginning prop
erly with 1878, was launched upon a sea of
troubles, with an empty treasury, declining |
trammeled resources, deprecated |
city credit, in the midst of eager litigants and
and after series of years of pro-
fuse and reckless expenditure Capital had
long Stunned public imposition. and sought
more congenial investment abroad, while
thousands of over taxed houses were left ten
antless. The city and State debt, for which
the city was liable, amounted to full fourth
of the total assessment.
Yet under all these adverse auspices it is
out justice to state that the city's actual debt
vas not increased in 1873 nor in 1874, while
he litigated claims against the city brought
before 1873, involving the enormous sum Of
a, 966,OO were disposed of, the adverse
Judgments amounting to about $2l1, ZOO.
When the Wilt administration entered
pon their duties one of their resources was
n the back taxes or taxes of 1872 and pre- ,
edipg years, amounting to less that So, OOO.-
90. When they went out the back taxes Ito ,
eta inclusive amounted to 81, 1877, 1888. The :
eating debt which they found on their =,
ands was more than twice as much as ,
nat which they were compelled to leave.
To do justice and to award proper praise
nd thanks to the existing Council does not
squire censorious criticism upon the con- y
uct of their predecessors. The term of !;
[ayor Wilt was passed in the gloomy mid s
ght of the city's Distress while that Of q
[ayor Leeds began with the gray dawn Of re- I
lrning prosperity. Comparisons are seldom y
st, but in this instance just comparison =
N only be made when the term Of the pres !,
1t Mayor and Council is ended !
= b
OTrv prrprNruMpNm