Santa Fe daily New Mexican., 1896-10-17

be sent to Hon. 8. B. Cooper, member o
the house committee en- territories. Thi
telegram, sent eighteen days before tn
date of Catron's letter of the Both, was a
follows:
"Board of Trade unalterably oppose,
to passage of Brice-Coler amendmen
to capitol BILL"
It was passed by this board with bu
two dissenting votes as will be seen OF
pages IS and 76 of the minutes of tina
board. Shortly afterwards it becam,
known here that this action did not sui
Mr.. Oatron and Immediately some of Mr
Catron's friends who were in communica
tion with him on this subject mad,
strenuous efforts to procure another
meeting of the board and reversal of itl
action of May IL. The members of tina
body, however, seemed 80 we'll satisfied
with its action on that date that it wal
found difficult at first to get sufficient
members to attend any OF the meetingl
called for that purpose to make quorum
and hence this movement for another
meeting failed until the 9th of May
s1896. A meeting of the board was callei
1or the last named date, and notices sent
10 all resident members of that organiza
rtion with notice Of the fact that suct
meeting was called for the purpose o.
taking action on the Brice- ColN1 bill ir
congress. The board met on that date
and the attendance was not only very
large but was composed of the best bust
onA ala IS l..
county and at that meeting both sides
the Catron-C Coler side and the tax. payers
side, of the subje was fully discussed
At that time there were not to exceed
fifteen taxpayers in this county who in.
dorsed Mr.. Catron's action, but among
that small number were some of our best
citizens and few of our largest tax-pay.
ers who then seemed honestly to believe
that any attempt to resist the payment
of these illegally issued and fraudulent
bonds, which no one ever had
LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE,
savored of reputation. After the dis.
cussion had at this meeting it is safe TO
say not three of that fifteen held to their
former opinion and though most of that
number were members of that board and
present at this meeting, the vote on the
resolution then passed, reiterating and
reassertlng the action of May IL, was, as
shown on page 80 Of the minutes of that
board, carried with but one dissenting
vote and that voter felt it necessary to
explain and did thea explain his solitary
dissenting vote. The resolution as then
passed by the board and which was i'm.
mediately telegraphed to Mr.. Hall, M. O.
from Missouri, was as follows:
Resolved, That this board again re.
iterates its determination to resist by
every honorable means in its power the
valuation of the alleged bonds of this
county illegally and fraudulently issued
by the officers of this county and com.
monty known as the Coler-Brice aid
bonds"
The few taxpayers who were, prior to
the meeting mentioned, influenced by
their desires not to do or countenance
the doing of any act which appeared to
point towarls the reputation Of an hon.
est debt, were undoubtedly misled by not
fully understanding the wide difference
between the making and ratification OF
contracts BY municipal corporations or
their elective officers and agents and such
contracts made by individuals and their
agents. This difference is a substantial
ore. An individual acts for himself
both In the selection of his agents aud in
the ratification Of the acts Of Others for
him and has full and general power to
bind himself BY any contract not declared
unlawful. he is therefore bound in Law and
good morals by the acts of such agents as
he himself selects as veil as tor the acts
Of others which he voluntarily ratifies and
he can promptly discharge an unreliable
and
UNTRUsTwORTHY Oh INCOMPETENT AGENT,
In other words, he is free to agree or not
to agree without limit other than the
general restraint imposed by Law that be
shall not contract to do acts held void on
grounds OF public policy, and he is thsrs-
fore bound to perform his agreements.
All this 10 not true Of the acts or munici-
pal corporations such as this county, nor
OF their elective agents, such az the
county commissioners who issued these
alleged Brice- Coler bonds. Neither such
municipal corporations nor their agents
have the general powers Of an individual.
but 81! such corporations and their
agents act under delegated and limited
powers, beyond which neither can do any
lawful act; and, what such q corporation
and it, agents can not do directly under
such delegated powers, they can not
make valid indirectly under such powers
BY ratiAcStion. That was always ths Law
in such cases and was the Law controlling
the invalid issue Of these alleged bonds.
If any one cares to verify this statement
lot him examine sections 10 and III Of
Tisdman on Municipal Corporations and
the very numerous authorities cited In