Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1890-07-08

Of such valuation and consequently be-
You'd the limit fixed by the statute under
which the bonds purportto be executed.
It is matter OF record that your board
after paying interest for upward OF eight
wears upon tho n. NJ. K S. T, Railroad
bonds finally came to the conclusion that
those bonds had been issued in an amount
exceeding the statutory limit and there
fore employed numerous private counsel
to contest in the courts the claims OF the
bond holders. To these counsel the board
paid large retainer together with large
contingent fee. The result has been the
most extensive and protracted litigation
Of the kind which has ever occurred in
this territory. Although that litigation
resulted adversely to the county in the dis
trict court, wherein a judgment was rem
dered for nearly $50 900 for interest alone,
your board authorized an appeal to the
supreme court, and in that tribunal the
case was deliberately argued and is now
pending for decision.
would also call your attention to the
fact that these bonds, in my opinion, can
not be legally funded under the act OF Feb
ruary 10, 1889. The only portion OF that act
under which any possible attempt to fund
the bonds in question could be made is
the last portion of section |, which pro-
vdes that counties are authorized and
empowered to refund any bonded indebt-
edness, with the interest thereon, where
| the same can be done under the provl-
sions of this act, so as to enable such
county or counties to refund at lower
rate Of interest than is now being paid
upon such bonds"
The T., S. F. & n. bonds bear Der
cent interest and therefore can only be
refunded at rate lower than per cent.
But section of said act is imperative and
provides that "any and all bonds issued
under the provisions of this act shall bear
interest at a rate of per cent per an
mum.
In other words, as the bonds can only
be refunded under this law at a lower rate
of interest than they now bear, and the
law expressly and emphatically limits
their issue to cases where such reduc-
ton can be accomplished, and, in fact, a
reduction in interest being the sole object
in refunding, do not see how the bonds
can be legally refunded at this time.
Since my name appears OF record as
attorney in the Coler case, although |
have never had anything to do in the
matter of the conduct of the suit,
other than to sign my name as
district attorney to the proper papers, and
/ have never been consulted respecting
the conduct of the litigation or advised q
single stepin the conduct thereof, deem it
unseemly at this stage of the litigation
to express to you my opinion, other than
as above, on the only vital question in
volved especially as it arises upon contracts
not yet judlcially questioned; neverthe-
less | take the liberty OF suggesting
that it does not comport with the dig
nifty at the county or of your adj
ministration for the board inconsist-
emily to resolve question of law
in favor OF one creditor and adversely to
another.
1t is my opinion that if the n. NJ. & S.
p. bonds are bad the L. S. +. & n are
worse. For the former bonds were os-
tensiblo issued in favor of two separate
constructions, and the latter named
were issued only in aid OF one construc-
ton,
1t is my unqualified opinion that ode
lays" in this case are not dangerous"
| have been surprised to know that one
OF the learned counsel employed by
former board as well as by your honor
able body, to litigate the N. M. & S. p.
bonds has had the distinguished courage
to appear before the board as attorney
for the T. S. +. & n. bond holders and
urge you to find their bonds, when the
most chuckle headed justice of the peace
lawyer knows, if he knows anything,
that it is case of "six of one and half
dozen of the other"
Gentlemen of the board, my advice is
not to fund the less funding" you do,
the better for all concerned, and the
bait held out to you of reduction of
interest should not prove an attractive
"hy" when We really consider the "whys
and wberefores" that have actuated the
attempt to have you pass the resolution,
which herewith return. Very respect
fully. r. E. TwIrCHEIL,
District Attorney.
Commissioner WHY'S announced that
he would vote nay on the proposition to
refund. Commissioner Sloan voted aye.
At this moment Gen. Nelly asked them
not to make a final order in the matter
and he would withdraw his proposition
entirely. This was agreed to and the
proposition was withdrawn, to be sprung
again, perhaps, at more proptious
time, for the scheme.
pERSnNAU