Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-02-16
" HOWEVER THIS MAY BE

The Supreme Court has rendered a de-
csion on a collateral issue relative to the
bonded indebtedness of this city. It Is
wise to come to clear understanding of
the opinion of the Court, and if it is true
that by it we snatch victory from the
jaws of defeat, to know it. L is not
friendhness to the city to hold out de.
lusive hopes None more sincerely than
the RECORD. UNION can wish for the suc-
cess OF Sacramento in her issue with the
holders Of the city bonds. As we read it,
the opinion Is capable Of two divergent con-
ciusious.
The proceeding was an application for a
writ OF mandate TO compel the City Treas.
uror to pay interest coupons of city bonds
out of the sinking and interest fund in his
hands. To the complaint the city de-
INJURED, among other reasons because the
city cannot be sued on the claims of the
bondholders, nor its property or effects be
levied upon CT sold in any process. To
this the claimants replied that maaaamus
may be invoked 20 require the Treasurer
to do his duty when he has the fund on
hand from which to pay, since the law en-.
joined that specific duty upon him. That
if it be true that the contract provides the
city shall not be sued, that attempt to cut
OF remedy against the city is unconstitu.
tional, "as the right of party to have
wrong redressed cannot be taken away
either by legislative enactment or by agree
ment.
This statement Of the issue is drawn
from the pleadings on file. Osher points
were made, but On these hinge the present
matter. The Court below sustained the
lemurIer, and the case went to the Su-
preme Court. That body now holds that
the coupon bonds were issued under the
charter of 1855, requiring 55 per cent. Of
certain revenue to be set apart to a sinking
and interest iund, to pay the interest and
redeem the bonds when due. That char.
ter provided that the city should not be
sued, etc. In 1868 the charter of 1855 was
repealed. The repeal did not impair the
validity of contracts made under its pro.
visions. The charter of 1868 contained
4he same provision for the sinking and in
crest fund and the payment of interest,
ETC., and also "aa implied ia5,5.j'oa against
suits against the city on the bonds and
hence the claim that no action can be main
tanned against the city. etc
low, says the Court, "io,rersr this may
e, it is no answer to a proceeding by
raHdamas to compel IN officer Of the city
20 perform a duty in connection with the
payment of the bonds, which the law uu.
der which they were issued has specially
snjoined upon him. The italicised words
quoted are those which Justify contrary
differences. For if the Court believes it
70 be the law that the city cannot be sued,
etc, why did It not say so Ga the other
hand, If it believes that there is nothing in
the 90 inhibition of suits, and that the leg
,slative declaration against suits is unoon-
stitutional, as aimed by the bondholders,
why did it nos say SO?
1t follows that we may infer that the
Court, since it quotes the law, is satisfied
that the citS may be sued or that it is
satisfied that it cannot be sued. 1t is a
case where the people can take their choice,
Cor the Court avoids the matter by the am
biguous words, "hoicerer tbs may Be, and
then proceeds to direct the Treasurer to
pay the coupons. because he has the fund
ont of which to pay, and because it is his
special duty, irrespective and Independent
Of the action of the Trustees or the Au.
dit1r.
7 swise the reader of the opinion is left
in It by these final words And as
The lpons pdrtake Of tie nature Of the
be o which they belong, and against
W the statute of limitations has not
ran, they were not barred by the statute.
The italicised words are ours, and are
emphasized because they leave differences
nan ss 70 what the Court believes to De