The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-08-13

now B. comes back with rejoinder six time
as long as his first communication, which "
| give in consideration for worthy friend, a.
| though cur readers are too far away fror
Chiesg ototake any very lively interest in th
discussion. If it was New Orleans instead q
Chicago, the points at issue would attrac
some attention, for we do not think our peopl
! would consent to shift the loss caused by 9
bankrupt agent from themselves to their limo
cent creditors. But as we give place to thi
second letter from B, we are obliged to ad,
stillfurther remarks, on matter on which al
practical men have drawn their conclusions
already.
Referring to our paragraph above quoted
which is an abbreviated restatement of the sub
stance Of a paragraph from some journal
which We do not remember. but probably one
Of the journals of st. Louis, or Chicago, o.
Louisville, we ask the reader to analyze it
Upon 80 doing, he will find +,as.
1. The statement that Duncan, Sherman
Co. were made the fiscal agent of the city o
Chicago for paying in New York the interse
coupons on her bonds. The scope and extent
of the agency are not given. How long tha
firm had SO acted, under what agreement, fol
what compensation, or with what understand
ing, is not stated, because not known.
y 2. The second statement of the paragraph
Is that the city of Chicago had deposited with
that firm as agent money with which to pay
coupons on her bonds What special or gen.
eral orders or instructions were given by the
principal to the agent is not stated by US, be-
cause not known. eEa '"| ,v'l 9.ii Is
8. The third statement is that Duncan,
Sherman & 90. failed, leaving due and IN
paid coupons of interest to the amount of
SAL 1000, while the deposit made by the prin-
cipal with the agents was ample for covering
all interest due-m Gaming, Of course, due
from the principal to the bondholders.
4. The fourth statement of the paragraph
is that the bondholders were duly notified of
theagency of Duncan, Sherman & Co. How
they were notified or when, We did not state
because we did not know. It may have been
done by advertisement from Chicago. Il may
have been done by the fiscal agent. 1t is not
stated in the paragraph that holders of cou-
pons of interest on the bonds Of the city of
Chicago must demand payment thereof from
Du hoan, Sherman & Co., or else lose them,
II is not stated that these coupons were pay
sble nowhere else than in New York, and by
40 pne else than Duncan, Sherman & Co..
5. The fifth statement is shat it is claimed"
hat illegally the city was not liable for this
oss." By whom this legal exemption was
claimed, whether by any one or more Of the
members Of the Chicago City Council, or by
Iome advising lawyer, or by some citizen in
crested, the paragraph does not state. It
vas no statement Of our own opinion upon
he matter of legal liability. Without the
acts and the law before US, we could not
orm an opinion upon that point, but we may
ay in passing that if there was technically an
the city would still seem to be
quitably liable 5i "a 32ifi
6 The sixth fact stated is that the Council
the Mayor and Controller to pay
II coupons to date The paragraph does not |
liege that the Council acted in accordance |
18th or in opposition to the. charter Of Chicago
r the laws of Illinois The Council could |
OF au.horizs the Mayor and Controller to do
hat they themselves had no authority to do,
ut since they did authorize those officers to
az coupons, it is certainly to be assn med, a
riori, that the members Of the Council
bought they had the authority.
The Council, the sworn agents and repre-
sntaives of Chicago, surely cannot delegate
, other agents q power which the Council
as not got. As agents of the city they dele
ated to Duncan, Sherman & Co. the power,
mongst others, of paying the interest on the
ty's bonds. 10 In the same capacity they have
ow delegated the same power to the Mayor
I'D Controller. As agents Of the city they
repaired and sold the ciiy's bonds, providing
r the payment Of the interest. One means
: paying the interest failed, and now they
rovide another through other agents.
z. Finally, the BULLETINS little paragraph
,pressed the opinion that the Council did
wisely in shouldering the loss, instead
imposing that loss upon the holders Of the
npaid interest coupons upon Chicago's
,nds. This opinion, embraced in one word,
all that there is at issue. OF course we
led the word as applied to the action of the I
ouncil on the rational presumption that the q
ouncil had the authority which they dele {
ted to the Mayor and Controller. Il
We reiterated our opinion, on Tuesday, q
wing reasons satisfactory to some very judi {
ous and honorable friends, and as we be- 8
I'VE to every one who has taken the time to I
feet upon the point, except B. For his in
rmation We again repeat that it is wise in r
9 city of Chicago to pay her honest debts, :
d thereby maintain her credit .
Here we might close this matter, but We u
Sd to add one or two thoughts. B. de- t
unces the Council of the city of Chicago :,
deserving of the Penitentiary OF his own q
sumption that they acted illegally, yet he u
duces no single fact showing or tending to a
ov that thew had No authority to do what u