New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-02-05
TO the vndication of their leader is natural 4;
but humanity has its claims
MTNLCIP1L DIFFICULTIES.


to elect half the members of the Council; have
stubbornly prevented organization, caring more
for small party victory than for the honor oil
the city; and now the city Is in default. More
over. there are citizens who are already talk
ing of initiating the example OF Memphis,
another city where Democracy and debt have
brought disgrace. Memphis has invented a
new form of reputation made easy; by an
appeal to the State Legislature it has OBJ
tanned repeal of the city charter, and
now tells its bondhOlders that the municipal
corporation which borrowed their money no
longer exists. 1t is to be hoped that those
citizens of Elizabeth who talk OF a similar
oDpeal TO the Legislature of New-Jcrscy are
none of them Republicans. For the Republic
can party is not the party Of repudlat0rs.
Moreover, there is excellent reason for be
licvIng that the Legislature OF New-Jersey
would refuse to lend itself to any such dis
reputable scheme. The people OF Elizabeth
have borrowed money and spent 1t for their
own Use and advantage, and now 1t Is their
business to provide for payment. II they
elected officials who spent the money un-
wisely. that is one OF the necessary c0ndl-
tions OF >elf-gOvcrnmcnt; the people must
stand the loss if they do not choose honest
and sensible men to manage their affairs
1t is as well to observe, also, that the Mem
phs plan probably will not work. The Con-
stitutIon OF the United States does not permit
any State to make a law lmpairlng the obII-
CATION of contracts. The cities of Memphis and
Elizabeth have made contracts, and any subSe-
ouent act of a Legislature, If it should attempt
a. I,,o In -
contracting municipality, would to that ex-
tent be unconstitutional and void. But 1t Will
probably be found that the debt remains and
can still be collected without the agency OF
any municipal government. II will PROBABLY
appear that citizens of Memphis, in getting
their corporate organization eXtin9uiShcd, have
only made themselves individually liable for
the debts of the corporation. There are some
elderly citizens of Bridgeport, Conn, who may
he able to give valuable advice to the citizens
of Memphis.
About 1885 the people of Bridgeport were
anxious for road to the State line, and voted
to take stock in the llou>atonic Company and
to issue bonds of the city for $4,000 in
PAYMENT The interest was guaranteed by the
company, but that became involved default
sued the city, The case was taken to the
court Of last resort IN Connecticut and was most
ably argued. Judgment was finally rendered
against the city, and Charles Hawley, OF
Stamford, attorney for the cOupOn-Eoldcrs,
proceeded to Bridgeport with q Sheriff and
with writs to seize property in satisfaction Of
the Judgment. He found no property belong
inc to the city, and therefore walked into the
drygoods store of Bronson Il. Beardslcy,
whose stock of goods WIS seized thence
gong to the grocery store of Miles, Thorp y
Co., he had seized several hundred bags of
coffee The drygoods and coffee were
put up and sold at public auction
and the proceeds applied to satisfy the
Judgment in favor of creditors of the city.
This was about 1912, and the individuals
whose property was thus taken afterwards
sought TO recover from the city the fall value
of the goods But the court allowed them
only the value obtained at auction. In 1913
the citizens of Bridgeport concluded that re-
pudation was mcOnvenicnt and levied a
special tax of Q per cent on the assessed value
of property to get rid Of the back debt. One
citizen who had $1,000 at interest at per
cent received $500 in yearly interest, and
was Obliged to pay $3.50 in tax on the prop
crty. Since that time we are not informed
that Bridgeport has made any second attempt
to repudiate debt.
1t is quite true that the legislation in New.
England States in respect to municipal organ
izatons differs from that III many other
States ; it preserves more strictly the common
law principles which lie behind such Organza-
tons. As long as the charter of Memphis was
IN force individual property could not have
been seized for MUNICIPAL debts; but when
that charter has been repealed, with its spe-
cial protection for individuals, the principles
of the common law are no longer re-
strictcd in force. a firm cannot wipe
out its debts by dissolution of part
nership the net result is that each partner
becomes liable, and he whose property can be-
seized has the worst of it. city Is part
nershnp of many persons. While It's Organlza-
ton stands. individual liability may not exist
but when the partnership is dissolved, the debt
created by the citizens in their corporate capa-
city then becomes of necessity the debt of
each individual member of the corporation.
In what mode this principle OF equity can he
enforced will depend upon the laws of
the different States in some measure, but
there are United States courts for the pro-
lection of nonresident creditors The citizens
of Memphis may prepare themselves to expect
an invitation from United States officials To
surrender their property for the satisfaction of
debts incurred by them as members of the
late firm known az the City Of Memphis, now
dissolved. 1t is true their case is hard. But
they have not taken an honest way to get ont
of difficulties, and will have to learn the old
lesson that honesty is the best policy"
4 TRIUMPH or EEFORM
1t is long since the country has been so
startled and surprised as by the announce