The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-04-09
how IT Is.

died over the mysteries OF the city debt Of
New Orleans and the attitude Of the New Or
leans papers on the decision Of the Supreme
Court Id the Morris Ranger case. In "a recent
issue 1t says:
teresf IL liz debt 81 he city 81 NV Orleans,
End who stand of ana ske quiet yeT n
creditors In that city. to notice the protean
shapes and chameleon hues assumed by the
proclivities. and probably tho interests Of their
peculiar friends and patrons. FOR instance ace,
the New Orleans. DEMOCRAT. which mas neeh
diators OF the State debt or at least OF portion
Of 1t. fully indorses the decision OF the supreme
Court as right and just. and thinks ne prlnsei-
tualiy settled By the decision. This coming
from the organ OF reputation spnnas rasne5
Inconsistent, and we we're somewhat surprised
decision 81 the supreme Court !. would tlt
bring timely aad great Baek and th
Mechanics and Traders Bank. both OF which
institutions had been embarrassed by holding
The New, Orleans Times. On the contrary. pro-
fesses to be anti population 10 the core; and In
It's issue Of Tuesday last has an article In which
which he denies that he Il in any way identified
with the reputation movement In Louisiana.
and indeed denies that there II any reputation
DIRTY Ill Lu6 0Lbt6s 1u6 LHftS 6AVE06b66 q
horror Of public dishonor and q repuenance OF
reputation which would and favor with the
most scrupElous and honest men Of the coun-
try. This is done In the first column Of the
fourth or editorial page OF Tuesdays paper;
yet. In commenting upon the supreme Court
decision In the Ranger case. takes occasion 70
available for resisting the payment Of . debt
upon the validity OF which the highest judicial
authority has pronounced.
the course of TIC DEMocRAr ID advocating the
reputation Of o portion OF the State debt with
the very decided expression 9f satisfaction ex-
has been checked by the decision Of the United
States supreme Court. On the other hand. the
course Of the Times is equally inexplicaDle,
cold. and In consecutive columns opposes and
advocates reputation. II may, be that the
course Of these papers is dictated by some ie'ie
somewhat upon whose OK is Rored.
We are not III the least astonished at the
confusion into which our Natchez con-
temporary has fallen, and hence feel no re-
sentiment at Its insinuation that we have
been influenced Id the discussion OF this very
important case by our own or the private In
terest Of our friends or patrons. We desire, On
this particular point, however, to assure the
Natchez Democrat that we have no interest in
the case other than that OF a citizen OF q city
burthened with debts, good and bad, and
which we desire to emancipate from mass OF
fraudulent bonds.
In another respect, the Natchez paper
is in error. The New Orleans DEMOCRAT is
not reputation organ, nor does the New
Orleans Times express views and sentiments
which ought to find favor with the most scru-
pulous and honest men Of the country. We
shall endeavor to clear away the mystery.
In the first place, the DEMOCRAT and the
Times, in their expressions relative to the de-
cision In the Morris Ranger case, are both
entirely consistent with their records, the
DEMOCRAT, In It's repeated declarations that
the taxpayers have sacred rights as well as
the bondholders. and hence that the State
and city should refuse to pay all fraudulent
should honestly pay what they honestly owe;
the Times, in Its assumption that there are
no sacred rights, save those Of the bond
holders, and that the taxpayers Of city and
State should be robbed and ruined to pay all
bonds, legal and fraudulent, save those hon
est bonds held by bona tide creditors jealous
Of their rights, who may venture to refuse
to confound their just claims with the flood
OF fraudulent evidences Of debt. issued for
corrupt purposes by the robbers Of Louisiana
and New Orleans,
Now, In 1861, An act was passed by the
Legislature authorizing the city Of New Or
leans to fund it's debt In what are known as
consolidated bonds. That act provided that in
the future no debts should be contracted nor
bonds issued, except by q vote Of the people.
Under the provisions Of that act the railroad
bonds involved In the Ranger case were
issued, and hence constituted valid debt Of
the city. All the bonds issued under that act
we believe to be valid debt Of the city. which
should be recognized, as they were for years.
After the war the Radical usurpers OF the
city government, here as elsewhere began
| the most reckless and protiigate assurances Of
bonds regardless OF the act OF 1852 or
the will or wishes Of the people. In this
manner the many millions of debt which now
Cypress and impoverish this city, gripping 1t
| In every respect, were issued. It was to con
found this mass of fraudulent bonds with the
bonds issued In conformity with the Get Of
1852, and to fasten them forever upon the city
that the premium bond act was passed. We
have held that II the act Of 1852 be held valid
by the Supreme Court Of the United States
then all bonds issued in violation OF that act
are fraudulent, and should be resisted by the
city. Hence, we expressed satisfaction at the
decision In the Ranger case, and we trust the
consolidated bonds will also be sustained by
the court. 1t will then be the imperative. az
it Is now the moral duty Of the city authori
ties to resist the payment Of every bond issuee
without the authority Of vote Of the people
The position OF the Times Is entirely dit
ferent. That journal holds that the who'll
debt should be paid, and that the holders o
consolidated bonds, who purchased them
relying upon the law and the faith Of tn
city, and under the law for banking capital
and who now have refused to fund them Int
premiums with the mass Of fraudulent bonds
should be forced to do 50 or their homes
claims against the State be destroyed or repu
Il ,liofod This ia a nlain sfafamant of tho % az