The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-01-13
THE CITY DEBT.
Answers TO the C0nundruns of the New
Orleans Times.

The following communication was offered TO
the editor of the Times, and notwithstanding
his invitation for answers to the queries pro-
pounded and his expressed desire for that
sort of literature" for careful perusal of the
people, its publication in that paper was de-
clined. except as a card advertisement, to be
signed by the parties, whose names are paraded
In It's columns, as the signers of document
which the Times does not publish:
Editor Ne,o orleans 7yaes-In your Issue of
the 18th. under the head Of Conundrums in
City Finance you refer to aeorresspondenceb be
of the Consolidated Bondholders. and conclude
your article as follows;
We should like to know how many of these
are not holders of consolidated bonds.
Then we should like to be told whether the
attorneys represent all the consolidated bond
holders. and. II not, what means they have of
securing the concurrence OF those they do not
represent
Likewise. whether they have been legally
authorized by any pondholders to make these
pledges, aud, If so. by how many.
And, finally, how they propose TO keep the
bonds from changing hands. or the bondholders
from changing n, their MINDS ~ ,oa,4 oou+o,
other points; such AZ, whether they really CON
slider as attorneys all these cards and inter
and again why they want an act of lesisat sw
to protect them in their own liberality, and why
they are suing for q mandamus which they
things OF more or less bearing and Significance
But we can't expect lawyers to answer such
questions as these. We can understand that
they are awkward questions to answer. If they
can give satisfactory replies to the questions we
have already put, ii will be something. and we
shall be deeply Interested Ia reading some of
that sort of literature about this time. Suppose
the people look out for 1t and give 1t q careful
perusal when 1t appears
Conundrums, when propounded in a news
paper. invite and challenge answers. You pro
TESS too special anxiety to be furnished with
a reply to the above dneries, and to be deeply
sbo s 5pa p
your curiosity and to furnish you with the
literary contributions you solicit.
the subscribers to the letter to the attorneys of
the bondhoders are not holders of the bonds
we have to say that out of the thirty three sign
ers of the, letter. whose names YOU print. there
are not a half dozen who now hold or ever held
q consolidated bond, and that this half dozen
do not include any Of the large taxpayers who
have signed the said letter. and that five-six his
have 40 interest whatever. directly or. indi-
rectly. in any consolidated bonds. and that
ofahe few who do own any bonds, their in.
serest Is insignificant. compared with that of
the whole number of the signers' interest in the
real estate which would be taxed to pay them
These signers have all an interest in com
citizens. in maintaining the faith of the city
and in recognizing the validity of the contract
with the consolidated bondholders: but beyond
that their chief interest is in preventing an in
crease of the burden of taxation in view of
which they have sought to procure the agree
ment of the holders of the consolda ed tonds
to consent to reduction or adjustment of their
demand. which will save the city from the
grievous burden to which IL would be subjected
In case their mandamus was enforced to its full
extent.
To your second interrogatory these signers
reply that they are not informed and do not
believe that the attorneys in the pending case
represent all the holders of these bonds. but
they believe that the agreement made by them
will be aCGuiesced in by the other bondholders,
and to that end they have employed a distin-
guished lawyer to appear In their behalf, to
repres, mt their views and interests, so as to
effect reduction of the tax which these parties
will be entitled to have levied should their man.
damus ha enforced.
Your further inquiry as to the need of an act
OF the Legislature to give effect TO mod
itieation or adjustment of the claim of these
bondholders. which, while preserving their
rights, would not conflict WITH any other law.
calls for no answer. How could you seriously
expect an answer to the question why the par
ties in This mandamus make their appeal to the
court, II they do not intend to avail themselves
Of it? Your intelligence will suggest to you
that these parties resort to the mandamus be-
cause the. Judge of the United States Circuit
Court, Judge Woods, has notified them that that
is their proper remedy, refusing them that
remedy for which they had applied: and sec
ondly they bring their action in order to have a
judicial determination of their rights or claims
which the city denies and resists. The city
plac them in a. condition Of repudiated
creditors. insisting that they shsli take in pay
ment of their claims. bonds. which they do not
think legal or valid.
They desire. too, to procure judicial settle