The Liberty Bell

• Decision Date: 04 June 1885
• Citation: 23 F. 843
• Parties: THE LIBERTY BELL. [1] v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. (FN1) BAYLE and others
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

23 F. 843

THE LIBERTY BELL. ^[1]

BAYLE and others v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. (FN1)

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Louisiana.

June 4, 1885

In Chancery. Rule for an injunction.

Edgar H. Farrar, E. B. Kouttschnitt, Charles B. Singleton, Richard H. Browne, Benj. F. Choate, Edward D. White, Eugene D Saunders, John H. Kennard, W. W. Howe, S. S. Prentiss, and Charles E. Schmidt, for complainants.

Walter H. Rogers, City Atty., for defendants.

PARDEE J.

An injunction, pendente lite, is asked on the following bill:

'Joseph Bayle, a resident of the city of New Orleans and state of Louisiana, and a citizen of the French Republic, brings this bill of complaint against the city of New Orleans, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the state of Louisiana, and as such a resident of said state, and against Isaac W. Patton, treasurer, and John N. Hardy comptroller, of the city of New Orleans, both citizens of the state of Louisiana, and residing in this district.

'And thereupon your orator complains and says: That your orator is a resident tax-payer of the city of New Orleans, who pays annually into the city treasury municipal taxes exceeding $500 in amount; that some time in the year 1884, the city of Philadelphia was applied to by the World's Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition to allow a certain bell, well known as the 'Liberty Bell,' to be sent to New Orleans and put upon exhibition on the grounds of the said exposition company; that the said bell was transmitted to New Orleans by the city of Philadelphia, and placed upon exhibition in the exposition grounds, with some agreement or understanding that the said bell should be considered as in the custody of the corporation of the city of New Orleans, and that it should be returned to the city of Philadelphia at the close of the exposition, on or about the thirty-first of May, 1885; and that said bell was, as your orator is informed and believes, and so charges, brought to the city of New Orleans by rail, and without charge, and that the committee or persons in charge of said bell were also brought to the city of New Orleans free of transportation expenses.

'Your orator is informed, and believes, and so charges, that any of the railroads leading out of the city of New Orleans are now willing and anxious to haul the said bell back to Philadelphia free of charge, and also to transport to and from Philadelphia such reasonable committee of persons as may be appointed to take charge of it; that the council of the city of New Orleans have organized a junketing expedition to go to Philadelphia, ostensibly in charge of the said bell, and did, on the twenty-seventh day of April, 1885, by ordinance No. 1,214, council series, make an appropriation of $5,000 out of the public treasury of the city of New Orleans, stating that the same was for the purpose of defraying all expenses which might accrue by the return of the liberty bell from the exposition grounds to the city of Philadelphia at the close of the exposition, and directing by the said ordinance that the comptroller should warrant upon the treasurer whenever there were funds in the treasury to pay this appropriation.

'Now, your orator avers that this appropriation under ordinance 1,214 is absolutely null, void, and of no effect or validity; that the removal of the said liberty bell, and the contract, agreements, and understanding with reference thereto are beyond the corporate authority of the city of New Orleans, and that the city council has no power to expend any money for any of the purposes mentioned in said ordinance No. 1,214.

'Further complaining, your orator avers that he is informed and believes and so charges, that the said city of New Orleans, through some of its officials, have agreed with the Northeastern Railroad Company to take the said bell back to Philadelphia free of cost of transportation, and that the said northeastern Railroad Company has agreed to give free passes to a sufficient number of persons as a committee in charge of said bell; the same not being, from any point of view, legitimate municipal expenditures within the power of the city of New Orleans; that your orator, in company with all other taxpayers of the city of New Orleans, will receive irreparable injury and damage from this unlawful appropriation of public money, and that they are entitled to the protection of a court of equity to enjoin and restrain this void act, as they and your orator are entirely without remedy in a court of law.'

The allegations of fact in the bill are substantially shown by affidavit, and are not denied. The counter-affidavits show that the board of two policemen of Philadelphia, in charge of the liberty bell, has been paid for the last two months by the city, and that the city has paid for the symbolical decoration of said bell, which expenses are expected to be met by the appropriation under the said ordinance. There is no doubt that the said ordinance makes an appropriation of the funds of the city of New Orleans derived from taxation for...