The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-03-31
censin,sesl lrs.,l rlrss eAEe.

,t lah Il, the city how that surplus shall
III applied But II is very clear 10 my
mind Knowing az ! am enabled u
know from wears " litigation IN this
court the condition of the city iinan-
COS, that IL. Is impossible to collect
these old taxes running from the years
tgrO Cd 1874 inclusive, unless they are
RECEIVED ia something less valuable than
money II Il fol' tile Interest ~ this com
,iainau, ana al the bondholdels that
ma rity aIp,fld he allowed to collect this
tax IA si,eh funds az II is able w use IN
,,nyinpnt of It's debts. aud thereby re
lleye itself of It's indebtedness To that
extent The affidavit of the City Al
ministfator shows that Y these taxes are
demanded In money 90 legal tender eur
rpnav that they cannot be collected ~
NH. 1 must therefore decline 10 allow
Tie Injunction to 90 to restrain the city
from receiving city scrip In payment 81
its uncolteeted tax.
The third branch Of the Injunction
nsked for Is. that the city may be tc-
strained from applying the funds col
leeled BY taxation TO the payment OF the
bonds not yet due, while " leaves the
bonds OF the complainant which are
due. unpaid and ,inpruvidej for.
M the ease OF Mnenhaut ct ais. vs.. city
OF New Orleans. ] expressed the opinion,
and stll adhere 10 H. that the pro
Visions of the section 81 OF the act OF
1852. that net being. In fact, the charter
og fha city. providing how the debts Of
the city shall In future be created, anu
limiting the power Of the city IN the pro
auction " debts. formed a part Of the
contract between ; ,e city and those who
received and held the consolidated debt
and the bonds issued by authority Of the
provisions OF acts los aud 100 OF the
year 1854 In my Judgment, the hold
s era of the bonds undef these two
acts had the right TO demand OF the city,
IN accordance with the terms Of the
thlrtyAseventh section of the act Of 1862,
that Az future debt or loan should be
contracted by the city unless the same
should be authorized by the vote OF the
majority Of the voters OF the city, ana
no ordinance creating u debt OF loan
should be valid unless For some single
work OF object distinctly specified there
In. and unless such ordinance should
not be repealed until the principal and
interest of the capital borrowed should
be fully paid and discharged.
Now. while the holders Of these rail
road bonds. consolidated bonds aud
Waterworlss bonds had the right 10 exact
these conditions of the city, they have
not seen nc to do SO, unless we consider
this litigation rs taken upon the part of
tions should be enforced
According 10 the ayerments Of the bill,
bonds TO the amount Of ten milliuns, az
stated IN the argument, fifteen millions
had been issued since the acts Of 1854
not IN accordance with the terms oi
these acts These bonds, u Is fair to
presume, are III the hands Of bona ilde
holders. and being In the hands Of bona
fjdp holders and the city having author
lrs h.,h hal
have the right To presume that the condi.
tiuna precedent have been compliedwith,
and these bonds are valid and binding
upon the city in their hands Now the
holders OF the consolidated debt bonds
and of the railroad bonds, and of the
Waterwofks bonds, had their remedy to
restrain the city from issuing these I'm
authorized bonds. But they did not re-
sort to II they have waited supinely
until the large mass " bonds has been
issued by the city, In violation, "a
think. Of their rights, and until these
bonds have passed into the hands OF
bona !ile holders, and ii is now too late
for them to set up any claim that these
bonds are invalid, and have no rights as
against them or against the city.
These bondholdors were asleep when
they should have been awake. They
should have looked after their interests
when the issue of these bonds was In
tie,i and not TO have waited until the,
fell into the hands of innocent holders
SO that, In my Judgment. these bond;
are binding now upon the city. and they
are good az against the holders Of tn,
consolidated bonds. the railroad bonds
aud the Water Works bonds.
Now the question submitted IT, Til,
court is, have the holders Of these bonds
which l have Just named, the railroad
bonds, the water.works bonds and the
consolidated loan bonds, the right &c
dictate 20 the city how ii shall apply its
funds raised by taxation The right {,
demand that the fund raised for the
interest upon their bonds shall be az
piled to the payment Of their interest
liz conceded
But IN this bill the complainant goe
further, and he demands that othe
funds not raised specially to pax hi
interest or TO pay his principal shah no
be applied to the payment Of the othe
bonds. In other words. h@ comes int,
this court and asks the court to substi
tute its discretion for the discretion 0
the officers of the city in the admins
tration Of the finances. Well. now if h,
had any lien, er II there was any trus
fund. which BE had the right to suhiec
to the paymept of his principal or inter
est, the court would enforce the trust
II he had lien upon any partieula
fund, the court would enforce the lien
But he does not make such claim
He simply asks that the city be re
strained from taking its own money an,
applying IL 70 the payment Of its owl
debts according to its own discretion. |,
other words. 10 substitute his diseretio,
aud the discretion of this court FOR tn,
discretion and Judgment of the OIL
GERS OF the city to whom tn,
law has 'contided the administration
OF the city finances. Ii seems 10 m,
that the complainant has mistaken hi
remedy He has his bonds and iudg
ment upon them, and he has the RICH
to have tax levied TO pay the principa
and interest upon these bonds That i
the only right he has, and that right i
only TO be secured by the common Law
remedy of mandamus by APPLYING {,
this court, But he has no right to de
mand that che fund raised by the cit,
not for the payment Of the principa
and interest Of his bonds should Il,
made by the city in its own discretion
Twill allow the Injunction to go t,
prevent the city from paving any Of th,
money collected for the purpose of pay
ing any interest ON the bonds of tn,
complainant aud others holding lk,
bonds. and TO prevent such money beinl
applied 70 the llymcnt Of any othel
debt of tho city. But must decline I,
RESTRAIN the city fiom the reception d