The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-04-01
THE DECISION In THE RANGER CASE.

| THE DECISION In THE RANGER CASE
There was quite an excitement yesterday
On Carondeet street and In banking and cap.
italistic circles, produced by the telegram
from Washington City announcing that the
Supreme Court of the United States had
granted the mandamus In the suit OF Morris
Ranger We. the City OF New Orleans This
mandamus orders the city to assess and levy
a tax to pay the bonds issued to the jackson
Railroad Company In 1854, upon which the
relator had obtained judgment. The bonds
In question were substituted for subscrip-
| tlon to the jackson Railroad made In 1852,
for which subscription the people were
taxed, and which was adopted In full view OF
and In strict conformity to the provisions OF
the thirty-seventh section OF the consolidated
charter Of 1862. After collecting the taxes for
several years, q new act or the Legislature
converted this subscription into an Issue Of
bonds, and the holders OF thesebo claimed
that they were protected by the same provi-
sions which applied to the original subscrip-
ton OF 1862.
This claim had been recognized by Judge
| Woods In Ranger vs.. City, 2 Woods, 129, In
/ these words: SIN the case OF Maenhaut vs..
City, Woods, 100, / express the opinion, and
still adhere to 1t, that the provisions OF the
thirty-seventh section Of the act OF 1862, being
In fact the charter Of the city, providing how
| the debts OF the city should In future be
created and limiting the power of the city In
contracting debts, formed a part Of the con-
tract between the city and those who received
and held the consolidated debt and the bonds
issued by the authority OF the provisions Of
acts 1O8 and 100 Of 1855. In my judgment the
holder Of the bonds under these two acts had
the right to demand Of the city In accordance
with the terms Of the thirty-seventh section
Of the act OF 1852, that no further debt or loan
should be contracted by the city and no ordi-
nance creating a debt or loan should be voted
unless for some single work or object dis
| tinctly specified therein, and unless such Or
dinance should provide ways and means for
| the payment thereof, and such ordinance
should not be repealed until the principal and
interest Of the capital borrowed should be
fully paid and discharged"
Further, on page 1874 OF Q Woods, Judge
Woods says: 1T seems to me that the COM
plainant, the same party Ranger, has mis-
taken his remedy. He has his bonds and
judgment upon them, and he has the right to
have q tax levied to pay the principal and In
terest upon the bonds. That is the only
right he has, and that right Is only to be Sc
cured by the common law remedy Of man.
damus.' 5.M5@M5&". @.
Sent to Judge Billings for his mandamus,
that Judge. whilst giving Judgment on the
bonds, refused the mandamus for tax, on
the ground that the holders Of these bonds
had surrendered that right to a tax by accept
ing the subsequent act, which pledged the
stock for the payment of these bonds. This
was poor comfort, seeing that the pledge had
long since disappeared, had been recklessly
sold and squandered. Judge Billings further
asserted that these bonds we're tainted with
nulllty as contrary to the provisions Of this
Identical thirty-seventh section Of the act OF
1862.
It was on this decision Ranger appealed to
the Supreme Court Of the United States.
The telegram OF yesterday announced the
confirmation of Judge Woods and the re-
versal OF Judge Billings decision, and the
issuing of the mandamus to the city to inn
pose the tax provided In the thirty seventh
section Of the act Of 1862.
The issue Of jackson railroad bonds by
the city was two millions, or which a large
| amount has been funded or retired.
The scope and significance of this decision
| are Of much greater extent than this liability
would indicate. The consolidated bonds
must quickly follow them, and, indeed, are
virtually determined In this decision. A case
is pending in the same court asking for a
mandamus to levy a tax to pay these bonds.
The pleas set up in the case Of the railroad
bonds cannot be availed of in this case, and
the point upon which our State Supreme
Court declined to grant the mandamus in
favor Of these bonds was eqally applicable to
the railroad bonds. Neither plea has been
approved by the Supreme Court Of the United
States.
On the contrary, 1t has in effect decided
that the holders Of bonds issued under the
contract embodied in the thirty seventh Sec
ton Of the act OF 1862 are entitled to their
writ against the city to levy a tax to pay
these bonds. mm
This conclusion Is the one which we have
for two years past argued to impress upon
our City Council and taxpayers as the just
one, which must vindicate the honor and
faith Of the city and place 1t in the most
favorable situation to readiust its debt on q
fair and satisfactory basis. Whilst it lis
great satisfaction to us to f1Dd our view con-
firmed by so high an authority, it Is
cause Of keen regret that two of our
oldest banks owe their embarrassments
and suspension to the contrary de-
cision OF our courts and the persist
ence OF our city government in resisting the
claim which is now recognized by the Su-
preme Court as just legal and equitable
one. The capital OF the Southern Bank and
Of the Mechanics end Traders Bank consisted
OF the consolidated and railroad bonds, and
by the judicial decisions referred to, and by
the unjust, unwise and improvident course of
the city administration, was SO impaired and