The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-03-30
TILE CITY,S DEBT.

which render controversy with IL
about matters OF public interest u CRATE
f.il task. takes Issue with the opinions
EXPRESSED In an article which we pub
lished on Sunday last relative to the
bonded debt OF the city Of New Orleans.
It was with some diftidenee and with
n confession Of imperfect knowledge,
due TO u merely superficial study OF the
matter. that wo undertook to present to
our readers. In tho article referred to,
tho impression left upon Our mind after
n perusal Of tho two contradictory ar
tioles on this subject which had quite
recently appeared In the Bee and tho
Zines. Our desire wns TO avoid taking
either side of the controversy; our sole
reason for writing the article at oil was
the fact that the subject OF which IL
treated was one OF Immediate public
interest, and our purpose was subserved
by simply stating the conclusions
which We. 40 impartial judges OF tho
question at issue, had drawn from u
cursory and necessarily imperfect ex-
animation OF tho points OF law and
equity presented by the report OF the
Master In Chaneery In the Maenhaut
suit, and the decision Of Judge Woods
In tho Morris Ranger case, u portion OF
which we published. But 1t 10 evident
to us now that very strong sense Of
injury and wrong 10 entertained In this
matter by the holders OF the old con-
soIidated bonds towards the city au-
thoritieg. because Of the refusal
Of these authorities to recognize
their right to the full and COM
plete payment, principal and in
terest, Of bonds purchased by them
under conditions peculiarly stringent
and binding upon the city. They main
tain that not only the spirit, but the
very letter, OF the law has been violated
by the city In Its subsequent issues OF
bonds, the attempt to satisfy which
has financially crippled II and practi-
cally disabled 1t from meeting the sacred
Indebtedness held by themselves.
E5So far as the refusal OF the city
authorities to recognize the Banctity
and priority Of the claims founded upon
the bonds issued under the act OF 1862 10
concerned, our sympathies are entirely
With the holders Of these consolidated
bonds. In law and equity their claims
are absolutely binding and cannot be
ignored without violation OF the con-
tract which the city, with the sanction
OF the Legislature, made with the pur-
? chasers Of these bonds. But there are
other parties whose claims, II they dc
not call for equal sympathy, are YET
founded In equity and justice, and are
entitled to q fair hearing; namely
, the persons who now hold, as bona
flde and innocent purchasers, the bonds
. issued by the city under various acts o.
the Legislature. As matter OF mere
, sympathy, therefore, the scales woule
seem to be pretty equally balanced, but
the matter is not one OF sympathy, mol
even Of justice and equity. 1t is ques
| ton of law, and as such we propose tt
treat 1t in the future.
D It seems very probable that this ques
, ton will, at an early day, call for fire.
r auent discussion by the press; 1t is
! therefore, unnecessary for us at this
, moment to discuss 1t at length. We will
venture, however, to say that, In ou
Judgment, the main points upon which
, the whole controversy will turn, 80 ia
a as the courts are concerned, are the fol
r lowing:
! l. The act Of 1852, under which tn
a old consolidated bonds were issued
+ created contract between the city ant
p the holders of these bonds which n
!. subsequent act OF the Legislature an
r no action of the city authorities coul
l. abrogate.
o Q. That many Of the later issues Q
4 bonds made by the city were made Il
9 violation OF the terms Of the act Of 1885,
"a and might have been prevented b
}. proper vigilance on the part OF tn
II holders Of the old consolidated bond
and of the taxpayers Of the city.
q 8. That the bonds 80 issued i
# violation of law, however illegal the
n may have been in their origin, hav
# been practically validated by the act c
the Legislature endorsing and author
@ izing the Premium Bond scheme.
: 4. That this Premium Bond scheme
q while it is binding upon the taxpayer
d and the people generally, since it
"a their own act, enacted by their repre-
>. sentatives in the General Assembly, car
IF not in any manner affect the rights {
# the holders Of the old consolidate
!. bonds, for the reason that neither an az
n of the Legislature, nor even an article
o the State constitution, which violates th
II obligations of contracts, can De sui
DR. tanned in the Federal courts.
/ We therefore conclude. for reason
g. which we may state more