Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-05-27

/ tive Council Tor raUhcat1on, v - continued
yesterday, with results even more satisfac-
tory to the position the APPEAL is defending
as were those Of the previous two days
The Hon. J. w. CIapp
was asked for his opinion on the subject, the
/ interviewer leaving the Judge to express his
views in detail without interruption, as fol-
| lows:
| The least 1 can say against it is thai :. is
| equivocal and dangerous. As to the amount
| of the principal for which the new bonds are
| to be given, consider that the least objec-
| tionable feature of the act. i should not
object to City cents on the dollar, with
moderate rate of Interest, bat believe six
per cent. is more than we can pay without
suspending sanitary operations Of vital i'm
| portance to US as a community; and while /
believe in paying debts l believe still more
| in the protection and preservation of life,
| health and the means Of comfortable subsist-
| ence. But my objections to this act reach
beyond the principal and interest feature.
| 1t is a studied and total departure from the
act of April 6, 1881, under which a Liquid
| ating Board was appointed by the governor
| and clothed with authority to fund the debt
of the defunct corporation at thirty-three
| and a third cents on the dollar. These COM
| missioners were State officers, the bonds TO be
| issued by them under section s Of the act
| were issued by them as n board, and in no
| respect Whatever were I0eY connected Win
| the present city government, nor was the city
in any manner responsible for their acts. The
| provision, and the only one for the payment
| of the bonds and interest as recited upon the
| face of the bonds, wss cd special tax levied
| by the General Assembly of the State of
Tennessee" Under the present act the pres
| emit city government Is in express terms, and
over and over again, referred to as the legal
successor of the defunct city of Memphis, and
as such legally bound for the debts of the
old city. The funding bonds provided for
| in section of the act are to be issued
by the city government in its official
| character, and will constitute a d.
rect legal liability upon us. This
is not only a radical departure from the
destroys one of the most important pro-
visions of the act of January 81, 1879, con-
shutting our present form of government, by
| the twelfth section of which act it is ex-
| pressly provided that the city government
shall have no power to issue any bonds,
| notes, scrip or other evidences of debt. This
conservative feature in the city government
was regarded as indispensaby necessary for
our protection against future debt and en-
barrassment. The present bill sweeps away
that barrier.
not intended TO confer upon our present city gov-
e1ment the pOloer to Levy and collect tar to meet
these bonds, principal and interest, IL squints
palpaby in that direction, and a hint Of Tie Kind
is all that the Federal courts require to au'hor-
ize the issuance Of a ni1ndaniHs. Section of
the act eonfers upon the holders Of The bonds issued
under lis provisions all the rights and remedies
that rere given 10 the 6ondhoIders under the act
of March 8, 1877, ksotcn as the "FHppin COM
promise act" and under section Of that act The
municipal authorities are required to Levy amt
ally can ample interest and sinking fund taz."
Under the present act the pOrer Of city author
titles TO Levy and collect far is noWhere expressly
scthheld, and they are authorized 10 issue these
bonds, the courts uouid seize upon plausible
ground'tO hold that The authority to issue The bonds
carried Nth 1t an implied posrer TO LEVY tar TO
pay them, as municipal corporations haze no other
means of meeting their obligations than through
the taring po'Cer. The sirth section of the present
La,c certainly hints at some other mode Of Lerying
q tar to meet the bonds than one levied directly by
the LesisLatuTe;- and then, Nth the implied pOtcer
and duty Of the city government, under the sirth
section Of the FEppia compromise act, think
there ia little doubt that, if our city authorities
accept the act, We may prepare far another man
damus shooer rhcneper the occasion requires IT,;
and, at all epepts, the Uhole revenues of the city,
uhatever erigeeies may arise, viH be at the mercy
of the bondholder.
In short, Iregard this act as at least an en-
tering wedge for the entire subversion of our
present form of government, and if we care to
be burdened with all the debts and disad-
vantages of the old city, for mercy's sake let
US take back the name also and get rid of
the hideous cognomen of "The Taxing Dis
trict" Tn this hurried interview L have con-
fined myself entirely TO the prominent OBJ
jectionable features OF the present act, and
have not time TO go into a more critical ex-
animation. l am, and have ever been earn
estly DESTROYS to see this old Indebtedness
satisfactorily and finally settled and will
cheerfully bear my part of the burden, and
as have observed, fifty cents on the dollar
with a moderate rate of interest would be
acceptable to me, and with the past-due in
debtedness would be, think, ample compen-
sation to the old city creditors who, for the
most part, purchased their evidences of debt
for a nominal sum but / am very decided in
my opposition to the act under consideration
and think its adoption by our city govern
ment will subvert our present form of gov
eminent, and will prove calamity and
curse.
If 1t is rejected and no other terms can be
made with the creditors, something may per-
haps be effected under the existing law ap-
pointing the Liquidating Board. AS 10
threats of what the creditors would do if we
do not accept the act, 1 regard it as brutuul
fulnen, for we may rest assured they are not
going to fund at fifty cents on the dollar
until they have exhausted every effort 10
get more, and unless all funded we would
still he harrassed by the prosecutions of those
who refused to do so. Having been instru-
mental in efecting the destruction of the old
city government and the organization of the
new, adopted every precaution to avoid the
mandamus power of the courts in compelling
the levy and collection of taxes, and unless the
Supreme Court OF the United States reverses
its numerous aud express rulings it will not
feel itself warranted in directing tax to be
levied by our city government, from which
the power is expressly withheld, and certainly
will not mandamus the Legislature, 30 that
upon the whole the creditors of the old city
will not find it an easy matter to force US to
terms.