The People's vindicator. [volume] (Natchitoches, La.) 1874-1883, 1878-07-20
Louis 4. Witt as Mayor Of New Or
leans.
Extrayiyance Of His Administration.
|Trom the NO. Democrat, July 1876.

{From the NO Democrat, July 1861
It will he remembered in this connrc-
tom that tie taxes and Licensees ct each
year ;l,r appIi, adj" only to the expenses
of tina, wear. Ylr only Resource OF the
Mayor and Council to meet the floating
deb, left ky the Flanders Adnln'stra-
ton in 1872 were the taxes due and eNi-
yiblc in that and former years. In Ike
manner for the expense, Of ]S'3, there
was no resource but the taxes, etc due
and cxi.ihlr in that year. Thus, for t he
year lS74, large amount OF taxes for
that year remained unpaid, and nec"s
sarily as large part Of the expenses "i
that year remained unsettled Mayor
Witt and his Council lett to their sue
ces>"rs unpaid tax bills Of 1871 and pre-
rrt,ling years amounting t" three or t"nr
millions # dollars. These were the AS
sets by Which the unpaid expenses OF
1874 were to hr settled. 1t Vas not the
fault of Mayor Witt that the Councl !
was unable to collect th" taxes ST 1914,
any more than it is the fault of his SUE
ctssor that the Overdue and unpaid tax
rs Of 1876 and previous years cannot he
collected and applied to the debts and
expenses Of the city. But "C't'zen,'
with his customary Inconsistency, haInrs
Mayor Wilt for urging the collection OF
citv taxes. ard then blamrS him for not
paving the city's debts. The simple fact
is thar the tax debtors Of the city w"r"
poor in 1873 and "a, and are still poor.
Many Of them could not pay at all; ma
ny could only pay by great sacrifices
and great many others are and have
been for years unwilling to pay, if able.
Taxes i'll this city have been rXhor3itant
but they have not been imposed by our
citizens. When Mr.. Wilt was Mayor
hrcc-tourths OF the city tax was COM
pulsory under the laws of the State. aud
the balance, if it could have been collect
ed, would have been no more than s.ltii-
cient to meet the city's current expenses.
We scarcely need mention these facts,
familiar as they are to all who are ar
! qrmntcd with city affairs. No Just citi'
zen will censure Mayor Witt for the city
bonded debt of more than twenty-five
millions that met him at the Threshold
of his administration, nor for the State
laws which compelled hun and his Coun-
| Gil to assess and collect tax to pay the
! interest and redeem the principal Of tbs
! debt, nor for the State police, which the
city was obliged to support, NOT for the
costly drainage contracts ny which the
city was ftttered as with chains of brass,
| nor for the vast floating debt left by his
predecessors, nor for the poverty OF our
| people. nor for the acts of officials over
whom he had no control, nor for the
State Legislation dictated by the city s
enemies.
Increase Of the City Debt.
As to the charge that Mayor Wilt
and his Council increased the debt OF
the city, it should be noted that the
Witt administration reduced the assess
IN mt (SI7 ,000,OOO) seventeen million dol
lars. and need only quot" from the ME
mortal Of the present Council to th'
General Assembly. dated February
s76, and signed by ADMINISTRATORS
Burke, PilSbury and Brown. After Civ
ing a statement of past expenses Ind
present debt, they add
I'm this connection it is proper to say
that hut for the issue Of drainage bonds
the Wilt administration would have
exhibited a reduction Of the bonded debt
Of about one million Of dollars III addi
ton to the decrease Of expenditures y!
said administration Of one million dollar
per gear
#
Follow citizens, you have before y0t
the charg> of "Citlztn" and the contrary
statement of three honorable admins
traitors. Which do you believe:
Retention Of George s. Lacey.
For the tention Of George S. Lace!
as City Attorney, Mr.. Witt is not res
ponsible. He had no vote in the Coun
Gil for Attorney. He neither urged no
opposed any candidate, and did not tr!
to do indirectly that which he hail NJ
legal authority to do directly. TIL
Administrators acting, as We may pre-
sumo, for the good Of the city in thei
best Judgment, retained Mr. Lacey, bu
Mayor Witt did not urge or ask an
one of them to vote for him, nor utter t
any one of them wis!, or preference Q
his own "a to the election, nor ut an.
time say anything to either of them t
bias them for or against him or any otl
er candidate.
So far as | know Mr.. Lacy attended tt
the business of the city with ability ant
fidelity. For the first sixteen months 0
the term Of Mr.. Wilt, Mr.. Lacey he'll
the city attorneyship by the election Q
the Flanders Council, and during thi
time the Administrators had occasion t
observe his Il lligence. ability aud snc
cess in conducting the litigation Of TIN
city. They found him ard his assistant
lah0ring IT, promote the interests of tn
city and to protect hrr against the in
Fortunate and exllol bitant demands c
greedy claimants. Being able and in
dustrious, we'll acquainted with tho al
, fairs and litigation Of the city, and he'll
in esteem in all courts. both State an
Federal, the Council did not deem
} wise to transfer the vast and complies
ted litigation Of the city to any othe
member of the bar During the 81!
months ending July I, 1874, Mr.. Lace
obtained in the Supreme Court of til
State one hundred and sirty-three Judgment
and during that period in the same coul
there were but three Judgments rende'e
against the city. A similar success al
tended the business of his office durin
the rest of the term of the Mayor an
Council.
Had it been true that Mayor Wilt
:, advocated the retention of Lacey ,as Cit
Attorney, it won1t only have shown tina
he is not an extremist and bitter part
! san, as represented by "Citizen." Bt
as he had nothing at all to do or say
, the matter, tho charge requires no IA
ther notice.
. No less Il rcformer than New York
great Governor, Samuel J. Tilden, ha
? been charged by partisan jealousy wit
the same. U1lcnse of retaining in offic
. available and tried officers, irrespect'v