The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-01-12
THE CITY DEaT QUESTION.
A Rule Nisi Asked For.

In The Fifth District Court on Wednesday last
another important suit, touching the vexed qnes-
ton Of the city debt. Was entered. This suit lie
one brought by taxpayer, and is founded upon
the petition OF the city herself In the case Of the
zaar Market easel.
The petitioner, Mr.. +. r. soushmsyd, pleads
that the bonds issued by the city of New Orleans
to the New Orleans, Jackson aud Great Northern
Railroad and TO the New Orleans. Opelousas and
Great " estern Railroad are nos binding upon and
owing by the city OF New Orleans. and thst acts
Nos. los aud ttg of the Legislature OF 1864. under
which the said bonds were issued. made no
other provision for sad bonds than the stock
il, said railroad, to which alone the holder Of said
bonds were limited for the return OF their money.
That the city of New Orleans, In the suit men
toned, had herself asserted and plead that she
did not owe the said bonds; that they were not o
the MAYOR and Administrators Of the city Of New
Orleans had tnevertheless) funded many OF
these invalid bonds and issued in place thereof
premium bonds, the numb RS OF which were
placed In the wheel and drawn with other mum
bers at the regular drawings under the premium
scheme, That il paying. 10 prizes and Ia prip-
cipal and Interest, suoh premium bonds, given FOR
said invalid railroad bonds an irrtpsrsbls
injury was done to taxpayers. whose money
was used, and that the Injury had been
III.
unless il was forbidden by the court; that as .
taxpayer be 1.-THE petitioner) was IL sfuly inter.
ested and compla ned, and therefore asked the
court to issue rule ,,ist directed TO the Mayor
and Administrators OF New Orleans aud 20 me
commissioners OF the premium bonds. (named In
act No. 81 Of 1876, the premium bond act, com
manlipg them to show cause, II any they have,
why the said premium numbers representing
the said invalid railroad bonds Should not be
excluded from the next drawing, January 10,
and from all future drawings under the premium
bond scheme; and failing In 30 doing, that an In.
junction issue comm andiDg them TO exclude said
premium numbers from the drawing on January
is. and all future drawings under the premium
seheme: and further, that said bonds issued
10 said railroads be declared Invalid and not q
debt of the city OF New Orleans.
Our readers will perceive at once the iinpor-
tapt nature OF the SUIT; the taxpayer assihg for
relief from the burden not only OF what be be-
lieves 90 invalid debt. but which has Indirectly
been admitted by the United States court in this
city TO be 30. aud TO which, In the Morris sult
in said court the oity has herself pleaded that
the debt Was not valid and owing by her.
Furthermore, the master 10 ohauosry (Jndge
r. Wharton Collensl appointed by the United
States court to inquire into the validity OF the
debt OF the city Of New Orleans (the Maehhaus
| case) has declared against these very bonds
concerned in Mr.. Soutbmayd's petition), that
thew were invalid for violation Of the CONTRACT
which 10 In the act Of 1852. the consolidated bone
act.
AZ therefore the city OF New Orleans has her
| self plead lin her defense against the seizure
| and sale Of the Bazaar Market) the very facts
| on which the taxpayers are nov In this case be
| fore Judge Rogers claiming an Injunction, ant
| az already these facts have been admitted by the
United States court In this city and asserted b.
the master in chanoerx appointed by said court
the taxpayers seem to have very strong case
The rule niss WAS fixed for tiial yesterday, bu
the city not being ready by consent 1t has beel
| fixed for Monday Mt ii g. m.