The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-11-15
ABOUT SEIZURES, BONDS AMI
STOCKS,

a Judgment against the city, seized the Bazaar
Market to satisfy it. The City Attorney
claims that the market Is source of revenue to
| the city and exempt from seizure; and, what
is more relevant to what we have just now to
say, holds that the Judgment held by Morris
being upon certain bonds issued by the
city to the New Orleans, jackson and Great
| Northern Railroad, and the New Orleans
Opelousas and Great Western Railroad Com
panies, under acts Nos 1Os and 100 of 1854
there is no obligation imposed upon the city
to pay the bonds except out of the proceeds
| of the stocks which were pledged for their
redemption.
We have before us only a brief abstract
| Of the bill filed by our able City Attor-
ney: but the limitation he fixes to the
| rights of holders of city bonds was defined
| with great clearness and fullness by Judge
Billings in the case of Morris Ranger VS.. the
city of New Orleans. In this suit the court,
In deciding that the holders of the bonds were
rigidly restricted in their claims upon the
city by the terms of the original contract,
said
The ordinance creating the debt provided that
all the dividends from the stock over and above
6 per cent (the rate of interest on the bonds)
IL
fund for the payment of the principal sum:
that each bondholder should have the right to
convert his bond into stock; and that the stock
should remain q pledge forever to pay the
bonds. When these means are thus set apart to
satisfy those bonds. it could not be said that
payment and, therefore they are not included
In the statute OF 1862.
might stop here. but there is another, answer
ner of its creation: The act of 1853 is a part of
this obligation. 1t is, as it were. printed upon
the ssd the bond and u9n
shall be valid unless the ordinance creating 1t
s snta ty prGyide ms3 3nat Of pahymen' The
Sc eso T to esep nose e spe Pc sa
Legislature. SHOULD enact. that thereafter no
the estate Of the ward. unless. in the note itself.
was specified the property of the ward. out of
which i was to be paid such note ,rou'd gire
specified, bit ,cond prevent forever his resort
to any Other. Now. the, Legislature provided
the voters had assented to their issue. When
The ordinance ,cas submitted to The rioters Of the
as It pere printed upon Il and made . pe,petuai
covenant bet,ceen tar payers and holders of the
bonds; Mat me means specified and no others
without doing violence to, a solemn covenant
the Legislature caunot add to the means which
The city must use to pay these bonds TO
isss the e., whole -, obiec{{ s q Which was t.
tie aathores Of ee on W
out providing fully and honestly then and
there, for their payment. and to prevent the
enormity. To secure the attainment of this
most wise object the holder Of a city debt must
be be- referred to the ordinance which created it.
gives he can have. but he cannot, go beyond
chat. To give him any ether would violate the
great and fundamental principles which
lie at the basis of all contracts, and that too,
where not alone good faith with the taxpayer
who voted for the authorization. but the vital
interests OF q great community require their
rigid enforcement
The position assumed by the City Attorney
in the matter Of the seizure of the Bazaar
Market by Morris for the satisfaction of
bonds for which the stock of the city in GER
tain railroads was alone specifically pledged,
is, in our judgment, the proper one, and the
public will commend him and the Mayor for
assuming an attitude of resistance toward
the multitude of Unsuitable claimants upon
the city. Taxpayers have rights which are
defined and protected by law as well as
bondholders. We have never yet heard of
any instance in which bondholders, or for
that matter the law, have spared States and
municipalities when States and municipalities
have slept upon their rights, or by other means
lost the benefit Of the protective features of
their contracts, and we are unable to sug-
gest any reason why bondholders should
enjoy greater exemption from the RESPONSE
bility of their neglect or breach of faith.
This is the position we understand the City
Attorney and the Mayor to have taken in
this instance, and the decision of the
Federal court which supports their stand
is so full of common sense and so much
in accordance with the ordinary principles of
justice that we trust and believe it is law.
For the action of Mr.. Jonas and Mayor
Pilsbury in The case of the Bazaar Market, we
are confident the public will have only cor
dial commentator. But while joining in the
general expression of appreciation, we are in
duty bound to ask the Mayor and Council to
explain, wherein the funding Of 81, ISL, 900 of
the bonds of the Jackson and Opelousas roads
in the Premium Bond scheme was consistent
with the attitude of the authorities toward
the Morris judgment, or the sound and ir-
REPUTABLE doctrine laid down with reference
to these very bonds in the decision of Judge
Billings?
It has long been grave question as to
whether the people were responsible for the
payment of these bonds. The terms of the
contract were familiar to almost every tax
payer in New Orleans; they should have been
familiar to every public official; and the law
and the contract are so clear, and so specific
ally pledge only the stock of the roads for the
payment of the bonds, that they ought at
least to have raised strong presumption
with the city authorities that taxation could
not be resorted to for the purpose OF paying
them. 1t seems to us, in short, that every
dollar of these two classes of bonds should
have been contested, and that none OF them
should have been funded except on judg-
ment Of the highest court.
We have no desire to attack the city gov
eminent; on the contrary, it has been harassed