The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1856-06-18
Judge Lands Decision on the Railroad Tag.

| In the District Court of the Parsn OF Cadoo. n
writ was commenced by injunction, restraining the de
fandants from the collection OF the rail road tax as
sessed by the police jury Of the parish OF Caddo on 70
andGd estate of the plaintiffs.
To state the pleadings and evidence in detail woult
extend this opinion to an inconvelent length shal
therefore, only notice such points law and fact as
deem material to correct decision OF the case.
The first question shall consider is: Are the plain
. lifts legally bound to pay the Vicksburg, Shreveport
and Texas Railroad Company, the amount OF take
levied their landed estate by the police jury OF It'll
parish of Caddos
On this point in the case, the facts follows
to-wt: The police jury of the parish of Caddo on The
18th day of October, A. d. 1852 passed ordinance
forfhe subscription of hundred thousand dollars
to the stock of the Vicksburg Shreveport and Texas
rail road company This ordinance contained state
ment of the number and amount of the shares propos
ed to be subscribed, towit four thousand shares al
tweatyt dollars per share. 1t also levied tax OF
two per cent annually for five years on the landed
tate of the parish pay the amount Of the subscr
ton one hundred thousand dollars. The ordinance
further provided that it should be submitted the
voters of the parish, whose property the tax
toned was proposed to be levied fer their approval
and ratification at election to be held at the differ
ent precincts in the parish, for that purpose the
first Monday in February, 1853. It further provided
that said election should be held by the commissioners
of general elections and that the returns should be
made to the clerk of the police jury within six days af
ter the election. The ordinance also provided that
the same day of the election the returns
should be made that the clerk and president othe po
lice jury, in the presence of all such persons should
choose to attend, should at the court house. ascertain
the state OF the vote, and declare the same; and that if
IN the affirmative, then to declare the tax (ordinance
to have the force of law The ordinance contained be-
sides other provisions unnecessary to be enumerated
in this place. f=s*
The election did not take place on the first Monday
IN February 1853, directed by the ordinance, for
the reason Stated in colonel Battles testimony that
notice otthe same had not been published for the length
OF time required by law
The police jury afterwards on the It'll day of Feb
ruary 1883 by ordinance, directed the election be
held on the 18th of March, 1858, such other day
as the president the police jury should designate and
appoint and by virtue of this ordinance the election
was advertised to be held ON the 10Th day of March
1903 by order of the president of the police urvbut
did not take place the Stated by col Batle
that there mlsdeseriphon in the advertisement
OF the name and style of the rail road company. !
The election was again ordered by the president of
the police jury and advertised to take place the 9th
day OF April, 1853, and accordingly held that
day having been preceded by notice for thirty odd
days, published in the Caddo Gazette newspaper
published IN the parish of Caddo
ana on The 18th day of April, 1858, the clerk and
OF the police jury proceeded, in the presence
ana other persons to open the returns and
count the votes, when appeared that 2ll votes had
oee cast III favor of the ordinance and 81 against it
eslng majority IN the ordinance of 81 votes
ana on the evening of the day 18th of April
'iS~t
N the morning next day the president ofthe DO
Ice jury, William Terrell, subscribed to the stock of
he Elcksburg, Shreveport, and Texas rail road com
)any tour thousand shares, at twenty-five dollars per
hare
And the 2sth of May thereafter the president Of
he police jury made official proclamation Of the result
+ the election in the Caddo Gazette and declared the
and ordinance of the police jury of the 9Th of Oct
$50, to have the force and effect of law
The liability of the plaintiffs to pay the taxes de-
aar1al Iftb Ia,,o l.. H., mIr
tated.
The ordinance of the police jury of the 10Th of Oct.
6o2 contains all the provisions required by act of
he Legislature of March 2h 1852 entitled an act 'to
rovlde for the subscr pon by the parishes and mu-
cipa corporations of this State to the stock of corpo
atoms undertaking works of internal improvement
nd for the payment and disposal ofthe stocks 50 sub
crlbed 1t contains Il statement of the number and
mount of shares proposed to be subscribed. a levy
tax on the landed estate situated in the parish suf
cent to pay the amount of Subscription and pecfes
le rate OF taxation and the time when it shall be pay
Die. 1t contains provision that it should be sub a
lifted for the approval ratification the voters on
hose property the tax was proposed to be levied at
election to be held specially for that purpose also
rescrbed the manner holding the election directed
tied lists of the authorised voters to be furnished
the commissioners ofelection and directed to whom
e returns should be made, by whom the returns i
ould be opened, the votes counted and the result of
e election decared IT, therefore, the plaintiffs are OF
October, 1882 does not contain all the provisions
qured by the act of the legislature of the 18th of
arch 1852. II
The plaintiffs however object that the election d.
cted by the ordinance was postponed from the eth j
of February to the 18th day of March and then V
rther postponed until the 9Th day of April 1853
le testimony of col Battle shows that the election al
postponed from the It'll day of February to the 18th
OF March, for the that notice of the election
not been given for the length of time required by tn
hat the l. mo
nement from the 18th day of March the 10Th of ma
or caused by of misdescription of the of
me and style Of the rail road company in the notice
the election, published in the Caddo Gazette br
These induce believe that the police nv
and their president acted in good faith in putting me
the day of election until the statute could be com ste
ed with, and all errors corrected. The delays be- the
es gave to the landowners further time for reflection nc
consultation and important subject. ia.
The plaintiffs further object that notice of the cleo ma
not published for thirty DAYS before the 18th
April 1853, and that at said election majority of rec
the roers uhose property the tar proposed to av
erd did not vote for the approval of said ordi- Del
ice, and that the condition precedent 80 lus
ratification thereof fan
evidence shows that notice of the election was iur
en- required by law and for than thirty days the
cedlng the election on the 10th of April.
As to the last mentioned objection however the evil onl
shows the fact to be true aveed by the plain ion
that majority of all the voters whose property ate
tax was proposed to be levied did vote for the By
'roval and ratification OF the ordinance be !
he language of the statute is that mo ordinance ces
Il be valid take effect until it shall have been a in
we'd and ratified by majority fthe voters on whose the
perty the sproposed to be levied an election obi
held specially for that purpose Act March 18th the
2 section 3. Who is voter at an election in the per
ming of the act? One who stays at home and re- tor
to to the ballot box? Or he who has the right o the
ing, and goes before the commissioners ofeeetona I
place and the day appointed and casts his vote the
Or against the approval of the ordinance? Iunder was
Id the words in the statute "a majority of the yo ind
at an election 10 held specially for that PURPOSE to ton
majority the voters who shall attend the cleo ing
and exercise the right of voting. And under fess
Id the other words in the sentence son nbase was
'ery the tar is proposed TO be eoe although inter pres
ing between the words majority rofers and autl
other words, sat special election to be held for full
purpose words of limitation description as pan
ting the right of suffrage to certain class of per- fair
Or describing the class of voters entitled 70 iuy
at the election, to-wit: landowners And do not the
der them as creating condition precedent to the I
dy OF the election or the approval and ratification
lie ordinance auth
this connexon may be stated that the evidence the
that although illegal votes were given both for this
against the ordinance, there was still majority the
voters in favor of the approval and ratification stoc
lie ordinance, and that this majority was composed ed
H..