The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-12-18
CITY FINANCES.

ny the supreme court Will nave IN e5JtbiHSu-
ing the relative standing Of the holders OF the
Consolidated and Premium bonds. In It's first
article the Times said "There is no posi-
blity of any courts sanctionlng such thing
"a preference bond. Every court which
they (the Consolidated bondholdersl have
thus far resorted to on this issue has repu-
dated the idea 1t Is wholly out OF
the question that they can secure an order
for the levy OF the monstrous special tax in
volvcd In their claim"
After taking counsel" the Times prompt
ly goes back on these assertions and. In a
very correct statement Of Judge Moproe's de-
cision, says that when Judge Monroe de-
cided the ease he ordered The tar TO be ieried. "
and further. that ''tho issue Is whether the
Supreme Court will affirm or repudiate the
Judgment levying special tax for the benefit
Of the Consolidated bonds. and thus giving
them n preference over other bonds and debts"
Thus the Times acknowledges It's own igno-
rance and inaecuracy in regard to the most
important fact involved tho preference this
judgment gives the Consolidated bonds. and
tho justice Of the DEMOCRATS statements In
reference thereto.
The DEMOCRAT not only reiterates what It
has said upon this point, but upon all others.
II reasserts that II tho principles enunclated
In Judge Monroe's decision are sustained, and
that Judgment affirmed. the effect will be to
secure the city against excessive taxation and
to prevent the payment Of interest on bonds
which cannot be legally enforced. The Times
is correct in saying tn 1t the decision, In sus
tanning the mandamus, merely declared the
legality of the Consolidated bonds and ordered
tax to be levied for their benefit.
The Times Is also correct In saying that, In
denying the Injunction, the court declined to
any other issue Of bonds, and that the Consol-
idated bondholders. having abandoned the In
junction by failure to join in the appeal
cannot urge that point In the Supreme Court.
We are willing to 60 even further and admit
that the PicdV,sic was correct i'm wing that
whatever opinions the Supreme Court may
announce in this case, upon this point, and in
regard to the invalidty Of other bonds than
those involved In this particular suit, would
be ob,'er dictd and Of no legal effect.
Yet there is nothing in all this that oontro-
verts in tho slightest particular the position
Of the DEMOCRAT in regard TO the ultimate
effect Of tho affirmation and enforcement OF
Judge Monroe's decision, In refusing to per
petuate tho Injunction Judge Monroe says
merely. THAT a proper case for the issuance
of an Injunction has not been presented" In
abandoning the Injunction, the Consolidated
bondholdcrs very clearly indicated that they
ooncided in the view Of the law taken by the
court. But why was 1t decided that n proper
case for the issuance OF an injunction" had
not been presented The court says. ~ thr
tar claimed by REALTORS is leried and cOllcctrd,
hcp hare no interest ~ prerenting he collection
Of ot hrr td.rCS.'
The implication IS too clear for argument
tho Injunction was dismissed because the par
ties praying for it were without interest. But
suppose tho city refuses to levy taxes to pay
other bonds or the interest thereon, will 1t
not be a party Of interest who can present n
proper case2" Or suppose the city does levy
and attempt to collect such taxes, will not
any taxpayer in the city of New Orleans have
an "intorest in preventing the collection OF
other taxes" that will enable him to present a
proper case for the issuance Of an iniunc-
tion2"
He most assuredly will, and herein lies the
gist of all tho DEMOCRAT has said in regard
to this question. 1t has not been our pur-
pose to champion the rights Of the Consol-
idated bondholders, but to insist that our city
administration should do all In its power to
secure to our tax-ridden people immunity
from the burden ~ debts that cannot be
legally enforced. We do not conceive that
there II any doubt as to what course should
be taken by the city authorities. If Judge
Monroe's decision is affirmed and 1t is to be
regretted that the Supreme Court has not
already passed upon 1t, as the city budget for
1879 must be made up during this month
they should absolutely refuse to levy any tax
whatever for the payment OF interest or prin-
cipal OF any bonds whose validity has no,
been established by the decision of q
court OF last resort. The city should
make the same fight against the
Premium bonds. and all other bonds, that II
has made against the Consolidated bonds. Let
no more judgments be rendered against the
city mHhom defense, as in the Morris Ranger
case and in the case in the United States Cir
cult Court. where augment was obtained on
bonds declared afterwards to be stricken
with nullity," and mandamus for a colec-
ton of tax to satisfy the judgment was re-
fused for the reason that the evidences Of debt
involved had been issued in violation OF sec
ton 81 Of the act Of 1852, the very law which
is decided by Judge Monroe to be constitu-
tional and valid. This Is all we ask, and we
reassert that the effect Of the affirmation OF
Judge Monroes decision will be, when the
validity Of bonds issued In contravention OF
the act of 1852, upon which the issue Of the
Consolidated bonds is based, is contested by
parties OF interest. either the city or its tax
payers. that the courts will declare all such