The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-03-29
THE BONDS AND THE PEOPLE.

l We pel0V0 Gnat Gn0 municipality OF New
Orleans, like any other debtor, should pay 1t
honest and valid debts. We do not believ
that the municipality Of New Orleans, an,
more than any other corporation or individ
ual, should pay any debts not honestly ant
fairly DUE We believe that If there are an,
claims against the city of New Orleans
the validity Of which are doubtful, sucl
claims should be either compromised
or determined by the courts just as |
they were questioned claims agains
private corporations or individuals. W.
have no interest in any class of bond
holders. Our simple duty, as conscientious
public journalists, is, so far as it lies In oul
power, to stand by the interests of the tax
payers and the people at large. These should
pay, and we believe they are willing to pay
every dollar Of the honest debt of the city
! No combination of circumstances, in oul
opinion, could do more to retard the growth
and prosperity of this city than movement
| on the part OF its taxpayers to repudiate its
honest debt, or to attempt to force it's honest
creditors to accept against their will, a dis
| advantageous modification of their claims
| against the city.
From the standpoint established by these
propositions we regard the various claims
standing against the city, and constituting an
enormous and oppressive debt of over $40 ,OOO,.
600, bearing heavy rate Of interest The
impoverished taxpayers Of New Orleans can
never pay this debt under the premium bond
scheme or any other scheme The premium
bond scheme, adopted in 1874. and requiring
for fhn f1Vcf ~ a..
comparatively small sum to meet it's annual
payment, now requires very large sum; the
amount to be raised will increase each year,
and as early as next year will amount to a
much larger sum than the overburdened prop
erty of the city can well stand.
What then is to be done? The decision of
Judge Monroe on the twenty-sixth instant,
maintaining the constitutionality of the now
famous act of 1852, and affirming the validity
Of the consolidated bonds literally as estab-
iished by that act, if II shall be affirmed by
the Supreme Court, offers a solution of the
difficult problem The act of 1852 provides in
substance that all debts contracted subse-
quent to it's PRONUNCIATION, except in COM
plianCe with certain formalities shall be lille
gal and Of no binding effect The act Of 1852
was wise and salutafy measure. 1t was de-
signed, not only to guard and protect the
creditors OF the city, but also to guard and
protect the taxpayers against the corrupt or
profigate administration of affairs in the fu-
ture. Had the provisions of this we'll consid-
cred and most iudicious act been strictly adj
hered to, New Orleans to-day would be COM
paratively unembarrassed In her finances and
one of the wealthiest municipalities in the
Union; her debt would be Insignificant and
her bonds at a premium. Unfortunately,
however, the city, with the State, fell, after the
close of the war, into the hands of bold and
corrupt men, who neither knew nor cared for
the law. In the prosecution of their wild and
lawless schemes they treated with contempt
the salutary restraints upon the debt-creat-
the bonds Of the city were recklessly issued
for the most needless and corrupt purposes,
until finally the debt reached it's present
enormous proportions, and the value of the
property of the taxpayers sank in an in
verse ratio; and thus arose the impossi-
bility of the city to meet it's obligations,
which led to the adoption Of. the premium
bond scheme. The gentlemen who devised
This scheme, and those who are now endeavor-
ng to carry it out have been all through, we
are sure, actuated by the best intentions and |
most patriotic purposes. The holders of the |
claims created in violation of the act of 1862 |
Ind have, to great extent, funded their
aims in it. A number of holders of CONSOLE
lated bonds, unwilling to engage in
long and tedious litigation, have
lone likewise. But the holders of the larger
'art of these bonds, relying upon the consti-
of the act of 1852, which was ex-
'ressly designed to protect their rights and
,lso the interests of the taxpayers from just
UGH extravaganza, corrupt and profligate
ebts as most of those created subsequently
0 the passage Of that act have stubbornly
efused to consent to modification of
heir debt which would confound their
onds which the city would never be able
0 pay. The city has attempted to force them
lto an acceptance, and hence the consolidated
have appealed to the courts and
btained Judgment in Judge Monroe's court,
lilly and completely sustaining their rights.
The Times OF yesterday morning attacks
ne decision of Judge Monroe; denounces the
elators in the case as Unsuitable bondhold- /
49," and says the enforcement of their claim
ill operate the confiscation of q large portion I
the property Of the city. This is very good
n the purpose Of exciting public opinion /
yainst the holders of consolidated bonds; but
is unjust in the extreme. Let us examine !
re facts and see from what class Of bond I
olders the taxpayers Of New Orleans have ,,
le most to apprehend. The principal of the
,nsolidated debt and the interest on it now
lie amount to about $4,700,ooO. The holders
this debt are willing to add the interest due
the principal Of the debt and for a number :
years require Of the city only the !
'cruing interest, which will amount to about
$4,000 per annum. The residue of the t
lormous debt consists chiefly Of claims ere d
cd in Hourap{ violation of tho OCT IF 1870 | n