New-York tribune., 1885-07-18
OPPOSING A HEAVIER DEBT.
ENJolNINa THE CITY AUTHORITIES

SUIT TO PREVENT THE SINKING FUND BEING DE-
pUCrED-oBJECTING TO MORE DOCK BONDS
An action has been brought in the Court Oh
Common Pleas at the suit OF the Bank Tor savings h tue
Citv Of New-Y York and Robert Gocet against William X
ora.s Edward v. Locw william NJ. Twins, Frederick
smvtb Charles II Reilly and the Mayor, Aldermen ana
commoualty OF the City OF New-iorR
which involves the question "hc'ho,
the amount Of city bonds held by the sinking fuhu
Commissioners is to be considered part oil thc cy
deht in applyng the constitutional Limitation OF lo per
cent for purposes OF taxation. Inc GU! "oos >.
q DC 600 600 which Is about $14.o0Oooo In excess OF
ho limitation unless the city can deduct
the amount of city bonds held by the Sinking FUND
about s34OOOOOO This would involve the canceiia-
ton of the bonds and the extinction OF the oinAng
Fund
The paintis insist the bonds held by the SINKING
Fund commissioners held in trust for them' as we
a. for the city, the laws and ordinances creans
the sinking Fund which forbid the Impairment OF tha
fund and forbid that they shall bo extlngushea anu
their right OF lien thus destroyed without ther
They therefore, ask that the city DEBT shai po oo
,a.roa to he the whole debt outstanding without de-
ductipg the amount held by the oinKihg rum"
Indigo Van Hoesen yesterday granted temporary 'h-
junction restraining the defendants from Issuing OF
signing any stocks or bonds other obligations OF 'ha
nature or doing any whereby the city debt may De
increased for dock purposes any other purpose Tor
giving any color OF authority therefor, except sucn 40
NAV be authorized by the constitutional nBehuh.5v
The 'sta,e of N,w.York adopted November 4. 1883
except supply bonds as provided ~ sne meen
ment until sucn Indebtedness shall nave psnn
reduced within the limit OF the ten per cent of tie
assessed real valuation OF the CITY ana .e LII LII
froler Is enjoned advertising for bids Tor any suc
honds ana the Sinking Fund Commissioners from unl
ishing or impairng the integrity OF inc inhus III .n,
hands. and from cancellng. selling or otherwise terns
mr. OF any OF the bonds stocks or other secur
ties which the fund invested The pt
directed to show cause on July z-' WI! Po "
Injunction should not issue.
The complaint forth that the savings bank hoids
city bonds amounting 10 over S4.oO0oOo ana hoDeit
Gocet city bonds amonntlag TO- S1.oup, rererrnd
len on the sinking Fund ana that rs 10 those OF these
stocks and bonds alleged to be prior and specific
chargeabe ha thereon generally tho main proiSSc,
tion which the piaint,hs hhsS hssng ,Srreased 70
surh an extent that security OF their holding VIII be
impaired il the constitutional amendment that they
;ua"ccs and acts of the Lecisaturc creating aud
the Sinking Fund The history of the SINK
s msp fra Co"ae ri ON ne 29 si2 is sct forth and Is
claimed the intent OF the consti,mlion' aenen'
and taxpayers from the danger oil loss on thcse socks
and bonds by excessive Indebtedness and over-taxaon
bnt IL il should operate TO extingush or impair tue
trust fund upon which the plaintiffs rely Tor thc teichp
rion AT maturity Of such OF the bonds as arc 'yaoe OF
from the fund. then the aincndnen s n-
constitutional l. Is claimed further. that The existing
indebtedness largely exceeds the 10 per en-, OF the
yauatioi OF the citys real estate subject ~
taxation limited by the Constitution ana thht ~ u
therefore unlawful 70 increase me indchcdnes un, h ~
the recent action OF the SINKING Fund -snhcrs
directing the Controller to Issue ~%ooooo" VI po0A
bonds at 3is per cent II Unlawful -. q, a.,
There been some criticism OF the course - inc
city has taken test It's power 10 issue more bu- "
was assumed 10y some that the arguments before the
court would all be made 10y persons dcsiros o prevent
Ing issue OF the bUnis. In rcEatt 10 ' 'ieT INC
orporation oun.el yesterday furnished the following
for publication: -.
am VERY glad that this question has at last got Into
the courts A. far back as December OF last year
stated In reply to nn inquiry by REPRESENTATIVE OF tns
tne courts nt the earliest possible moment IN
order, however TO properly present the case 20 thr
court IL was necessary that the persons VINO
under my former opinion were most lntefcSte' W tno
stipn should have hearing refer OF course 10 the
holders city securities. the payment of when -
charge upon the siuKing Fund investments The
action Of the sinking Fund Commissioners IN directing
the sale OF the bonds. enables III. holders oi our
sfaudug bonds TO come into court OF course. that
pace. tho dcfcuinntA viz: The city oncer- WI" are
according the complaint. threatening to Issue tue
bonds in "A position auagonisic To my former OPINION
Gated a. soon heard OF tho suit win the representa-
tives OF owners OF property IN the new parks as thls
class OF persons Is largely Interested III net"rha"
Of the question. ! explained TO them thN OF
my own view. could pay money
of the city retainer TO counsel 10 argue n Opposition
IN NV ow roncepon OF the law but that any OF them
feli sufficiently interested IN fhe decision % sec"
present their views. wOnll he most hapft
Ia them A hearing special counsel Tor tho de-
fence understand thar JOhu l.. Dcyelln ~ gcnernly
in support OF further Issue o pohu-
and sec 10 why the provisions nf TIC con
stltutonal amendment may not receive Judicial inter
preiation at an early date. OF course, this u innch
m desirable test the question Than womb pc
for branch OF the city government 10 Apply Tor
msndamus To compel another branch of the same
Interested have. tho present suit their day In