New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-01-26
Property Holders' Central ConnciI.


The regular meeting of the Property |
Holders Central Council was held last night |
at Grunewald Hall. with Mr. A. Mitchell,
president, in the chair.
A resolution was received from the Ninth
Ward Union, requesting the Central Coun-
Gil to examine article thirty-nine Of the
State constitution regarding the per diem
of members Of the General Assembly, and
to report whether in their opinion said
members are entitled to mileage, and to
take such action as may be necessary to
amend the constitution, or to enact such
laws in the premises as will limit the mem
bers to reasonable salary and curtall the
expenses of the General Assembly.
Resolutions from the first ward were re-
: ceived applauding Administrator Bouny
for his support of Mayor Leeds course in
regard to taxation, and denouncing the
other Administrators for not agreeing with
him.
Resolutions we're received from the third
ward instructing their Representatives in
the Legislature not to vote for any appro-
priations of money for any purpose un-
til the measures of reform required
for the reduction of taxation be passed
and approved; 20 endeavor 10 re-
duce expenses of all public officers, and
abolish all fees, and to aid in having the
present bureau system changed, and de-
| nouncing the Administrators Ter not sup
| porting Mayor Leeds, and rendering vote
of thanks to Administrator Bouny.
Mr.. Hughes made few remarks about
the charges Of the New Orleans Gasllght
! Company, which he thought were too hie h.
He informed the Council that Mr. Ham
mond had bill which he intended to push in
the Legislature fixing the price Of gas.
The following preamble and resolutions
were offered by DR.. Tebault, and finally
passed after lively discussion Of two
hours:
WHEREAS, In the language of our ad
dress, "the property holders do not advo
cate the repudiation of the public debt but
they know that if it is all recognized as
valid, it will be impossible for the depleted
property and the ruined industries OF this
CITY to meet the interest and the current ex
| Del6e6 OF inc mOet cCOUuAAICoi eoSoAuAhSh II /
that the attempt to meet all claims must
end in bankruptcy or repudiation;' and
Whereas. They believe that the greater
part of the city debts were neither con
tracted by the consent of the people nor ex
pepded in their interests: that many OF
them were incurred through the agency O
bribery and corruption, many to suoservt
private schemes, and very few for vallo
considerations; and
Whereas. Having appointed commit
tee to scrutinize and examine these debts
the laws under which they were issued
and the Ostenslble purposes and consldera
tions for which they were contracted, sc
that our Legislature may more readily re-
peal these iniquities which have breugn
the people to poverty and
Whereas, Our committee OF five on CIT.
debt made a majority and minority re
port, the following being an extract iron
the majority report: The certified ant
bonded debt of the city of New Orleans, OF
the thirtieth day of June, 1873. amounted
to the sum of 81, ,002, ,O30 81. OF this sum IN
consolidated debt, amounting to 81, ,4I9, 25O
railroad bond debt 5000. goo, Waterwork
bond debt 81 .392 400. making total sum o
$s. .S69. $50, which may be assumed to hav
been Issued in conformity with the provIs
ions of section thrty-six of the act OF tn
twenty third of February, 1852. This sui
of S., ,s69. $50 may therefore be safely classe'
, as 8 legitimate debt due by the city OF New
Orleans. The remainder of the city debt
amounting to the sum OF $l3, !,3eo 81
> | is founded upon Q subsequent issue 9
| bonds conceded to be in violation of the pro
visions of the act of 1852 because not author
lied by a majority Of the qualified voter
of New Orleans, and not issued IN accorC
, | ance with other provisions of the act whic
fixes the penalty of nullity for non -compl
: ance Herewith. 1t is true that the act Q
: the twenty third of February, 1882, was re
r | pealed by the fty-frst section of the act {
, the sixteenth Of March, 1870. But the repea
= ing act is clearly law impairing the obi
' cation of contracts, and in violation OF tn
f article 10 of the constitution of the Stat
. | and therefore null and void. The Legisls
ture was not competent to pass such an &C
We therefore regard the legal, !egltlmat
debt of the city to be the sum OF $S,so9, 6o
+ The holders Of other bonds contend tha
: at all events the city has had the use Q
their money, and that it is bound in equt
and good conscience to pay obligations col
tracted for it's benefit The argument migt
hold good had not these obligations bee
made in express violation of law. 1T
same rule of common justice applies to tn
!. public creditor that applies to the privat
l. creditor. The purchasers of city bonds,
Il contracting with the city OF New orlean
we're we'll aware that they were dealin
o with political corporation having limite
n powers clearly defined by law. 1t va
i. their duty to see that the city was actin
- within the scope of its authority. Most {
these bonds were purchased at less tina
It their par value, and the bOndholders di
o counted the city's paper at their price
4 This being signed by Messrs. w. Is. hoont
y John Hughes and A. B. Seger.
And whereas, The following is an extrat
of the minority report: "The bonded an
certified debt of this city on June 30, lS7
n was s., ,OO2, ,O3l 81. OF this amount there ar
Consolidated S. 447 $50; railroad %, ,03O 90
u Waterworks 81, ,392, 400; making total
IS SS69, $50, issued according to act OF Fe
+ ruary %, 1852, and ratified by popnls
10 vote. We find, however, in connectio
fund was provided by law for them, I
l. specially required by act of February 2
"a 1852 This act was particularly stringel
in its provision, as it took the form OF
contract between two parties, and was L
tended and 80 framed as to be bindil
until it's provisions were all strict
}. and legally complied With with. The. Ihe oa
u $l3l32,3eO 81, the result of willful extrav
1t gance, ring combinations and unscrupulo
II legislation. 1t was issued up'
the authority of subsequent acts of q
Legislature, in violation of the act OF co
solidation OF February %, 1852, was nev
" submitted to a vote Of the people, and Il
e. these reasons can not be considered
in binding or legal, and is not, in the opinit
of your committee, entitled to full considt
~ y alton. 1t may be claimed that the act
d, March l6, 1870, repeals so much Of the a
ir of February %, 1852, as prohibited t
n further issuance of bonds, but We fail to s
- the legal or equitable right of subseque
70 law which proposes to alter or impair
70 contract previously entered into. See az
t. - U1er,a 0osv oo6<