The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-01-09
THE CITY DEBT.

n the recent communication In this pap
= signed H." and the article we prin
ed on the 9Th inst. headed Ell
- Consolidated Bonds" the latter. he sa,
'purporting to come from the taxpayers, Y,
not signed by single one OF this class.
Herein Brutus Is very much In error W
printed the article headed ''The Consolidate
Bonds" rs 1t was handed to us, as q matte
OF news. and, on being assured that Ii ha
: MT that time received the signatures of
s number OF the largest taxpayers in New
, Orleans-one Of the signers, In fact, beint
a taxpayer TO tho amount Of fifty thousan,
dollars. The communication signed IL.
proposing o compromise of the city debt
was written by, and published at Tho
request of, one of the leading merchants
OF New Orleans-a gentleman of high
{ personal character, and largely inter.
ested In the prosperity OF the city
We gave his communication place In the
columns of the DEMOCRAT, as we do that Oh
Brutus, irrespective of any views of our
own on this vexed question. and simply
because he belongs to that class Of the com
munity whose interests are such that they
have right to o hearing through this Jour
nal on subjects Of public interest. whether
they agree with us or not
| We have, upon several occasions, expressed
our views on the city debt. and we think so
| clearly that our position cannot be msunder-
| stood. We have not announced those views
aggressively because the interests involved
are SO vast; because they SO ramify society
| and involve SO many points. If not of law. at
| least of equity, that we have felt the
n inn
one to discuss with temper. Upon
general principles we agree with our
correspondent of to-day, that the status Of
the different series Of bonds issued since the
act OF 1859 ought, before receiving the reeogni-
ton OF the public officials, to be pronounced
upon by the courts. But the question arises
What showing would the taxpayers Of New
Orleans have in the Federal courts. where
the validity Of the bonds would most proba- |
bly, be testedp These courts all over the
country are organized In the interest of the
bondholders; they are under the influence of
the money power, and will decide in every
case in favor of the bondholder
We believe that many of the bonds repre |
senting the so-called debt of this city are rot |
ten with fraud; but there is not bond out |
opinion will finally, IL carried there be deter.
mined In the Federal courts against the city.
This rooted conviction that the taxpayers have
no rights that a Federal court will recognize
as against bondholder, has very greatly tenn
pered our opposition to the present financial
scheme of the city authorities, under which
they are redeeming considerable sums Of the
questionable Indebtedness at heavy dis
count; and 1t has disposed us to believe that,
II the premium bond plan Is abandoned, ex-
pediency and prudence may justify an ar
between taxpayers and bondhold- |
srs, without the mediation of courts, which
nay In large measure relieve the former
Ind accord to the latter such part Of their
'laims, as under the equities Of the situation
nay be due them. H
We do not propose to champion in these t
columns the cause of the consolidated bond |
folders, nor that OF other classes of bondhold- !
re- nor the premium bond scheme. Simple
Justice is what we desire to see done, and we =
eel very certain that that is what will
ot be done, II any one party of claimants
4 this business obtains all their demands. r
Ii all the questions involved could be re-
litted to the courts of this State, we should
ertainly say the courts offered proper soll-
ion of the problem; If the questions are to 20
efore the Federal courts, we do not hesitate
, express the apprehension that the taxpay- ,
RS will get completely fleeced. We should like
} hear Of any recent final decision of an issue
etween taxpayers and bondholders in the
ederal courts that has not been in favor of
he latter.
From the fierce attack of our correspondent
pom the city administration we certainly dis D
mt We firmly believe those gentlemen are =
endeavoring to manage this u
sxed question in the public interest. We
D not agree with them upon many points.
nd we have very plainly, upon several occa-
ons, expressed our dissent. But the cues
on Is one too full of difficulties and touches
70 many interests to warrantan attack upon -
he motives and policy of those who are 70
sndling 1t under the law as it exists. The al
le point on which they seem to us to be Il
is that they have not contested
10 questionable bonds they have funded
to premiums, and, as we have said, consid-
ing the character of the Federal courts IT is
open question whether or not they have
Vt been prudent in adopting the course they pl
d.