The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-03-25
tTTY BONDS

expressed by the Bee and the fSnses, II
would seem that considerable difference
OF opinion exists in the community In
regard TO she scope and meaning OF the
decisions OF Judges Woods and Billings
relative TO the status OF the different
kinds OF bonds issued by the CITY Of
New Orleans since 1859. -
We have not made careful study Of
the matter, but have looked intoit suffl.
silently to enable us to give to our
readers an impartial and pretty clear
idea OF the question. Us 10 stands. with.
out committing ourselves to any one OF
the conflicting views which are enter
tanned on the subject /.
It will be remembered that Judge L.
Wharton Collens was appointed by the
United States Circuit Court. In the case
OF Rosa Maenhaut VS.. the city OF New
Orleans, master In chancery to report
upon the various issues OF bonds made
by tho city. His report was filed In
court some two months ago, but has not
vet been acted upon by the court
Judge Collens' great ability and
thoroughness as q jurist and investi-
gator or facts and statutes give neces-
sarily great weight TO his report. The
main legal proposition upon which the
report proceeds is that the act OF 1859,
authorizing the issue OF the old con-
solidated bonds, and imposing upon the
city authorities the obligation Of rails
ing annually, by taxation, the sum OF
$3.50, 900 for the payment Of the interest
and the redemption Of the principal OF
these bonds. created contract between
the holders of the bonds and the city,
and that the conditions OF this contract
have been violated In all Of the subse-
uuent issues of bonds. This PROPOSE
tion certainly commends itself very
strongly to the legal mind as correct
Interpretation OF the letter OF the law
and logical conclusion from the
premises established In the particular
suit above mentioned: but, assuming
that 1t will be adopted blythe Circuit
Court and the Supreme Court OF the
United States, 1t Is by no means conclu-
slye upon anything except the absolute
right OF the holders OF these bonds to
demand of the city the full payment Of
the principal and interest of these bonds
and to enforce such payment by proper
legal proceedings.
The conclusion reached by the mas |
ter In chancery that the other classes Of
city bonds were issued contrary to law |
may be true enough as naked legal
proposition, but 1t does not necessarily
aafect the value Of these bonds except in |
this, that 1t denies to them the privilege |
claimed for the old consolidated bonds |
OF payment in full, principal and in
terest; but most of the holders |
OF this class Of securities appear to have |
long since abandoned all hope of |
their redemption at |
par and have converted them into pre-
mium bonds, and thus entered into a |
new contract with the city, sanctioned |
by an act OF the Legislature.
The question will arise whether the
city Of New Orleans, even IL it should |
atfempt to evade the payment fthese |
liabilities, will be permitted to take ad- |
vantage of its own wrong and repudiate
obligations incurred for Its own bene-
AZ. we are happy to say that no i'm
putation OF any such intention can just |
ly be made against it. The present and |
former City Administrators have stood |
honestly by their moral obligation to |
recognize and pay, to the extent OF |
their ability, all Of the bonds issued by |
their predecessors. They have resisted |
with great zeal the attempt of the
holders of the consolidated bonds TO
enforce their legal preference aud in
validate obligations incurred. In al
legged violation Of their contract. On
the first point they ha7eso Ear been de-
feated; the second point will come up |