New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1859-11-23
SUPREME co URT DECISIONS.
ne following cases were decided upon in t
Supreme Court on Monday last:

The following cases were decided upon in the
Supreme Court on Monday last:
City Of New Orleans Vs. Crescent Newspaper
suit for =. city tax of SO upon capital for the
year 1856. The capital was invested in daily
Newspaper, printed and published in the city Of
New Orleans. Defense set up is Illegally and I'M
c0nstitutionality Of the tax. Defendants plead
that impositicn Of tax BY the municipal authority
p gs nsxsgaper properly is violation Of Article
lO6 81 the State Constitution, which reads as fol-
lows The press shall be free Every citizen
maylreely speak, write and publish his sentiments
on all subjects, being responsible for an abuse of
such liberty Counsel for defendants rests his ar
gument on the first sentence of said article, and
urges that being perfect sentence in doctrine e
absolute and unqualified, this Court, said Judge
buchanan, 10 bound to give to it the utmost latitude
Of meaning Of which the words are susceptible;
accofangly O. n hscal matters merchandise is
portattOn, il follows that the stock of a printing
office establishment cannot be taxed.
We 90 not thus understand the article Of the
consultation. The second sentence Of that article
explains and elucidates the meaning Of the first
sentence. The press is free that is to say, every
citizen may publish his sentiments on all subjects.
No censorship Of press shall exist; no officer of
Government shall dictate what may or what may
not be published; such is the freedom of the
press, as secured by this article. And note
the restriction of that Freedom restriction one
rating not in the form of prevention (Which would
pc lmpolitic without censorship but in the form
- lHc RuuliSIler says the article is re-
sponsihle for an abuse of the freedom Of pubea.
uon, The Limitation, no less than the grant. points
evidently to different kind of freedom from that
fscal freedom for which the defendants contend
Inc grounds Of ilegalty in the assessment of this
Mx are the same as alleged in the case of the CITY
vs.. y; y. Hart Co., just decided (See Fl. & Co'3
Tor me reasons there given this defense is apnuled
Ihere y Az ilegaty apparent upon the face of the
record, winch we are bound to correct. The
Judgment q the District Court allows per cent,
commission upon the amount of tax to the Assist
any Gl1y A.torney to be paid by defendant. The
allowance IL claimed under State law which hos
been repealed, was decided by Is in the case #
the City W.. deter, 10 Annual SD. In the ahsenca
OF State law, this commission is to be yiewed I'd
penalty imposed by authority Of a mnnie;nai car
poration, Of which the legality is exam;nahle 4;
this Court under the terms of Article 60 Of Const;
tuition This point has been decided in case auated
above. It Is therefore adjudged and decreed. that
Judgment Of the District Court be amended and
that plaintiff and appellee recover Of defendants
and appellants $75, and interest at rate Of per
cent. month, iron the 18th July, 1857, until paid
and costs of Second District Court those of appeal
to be paid ny plaintiff.
State Mutual Insurance Company of Pennsyl.
vaniasFs. q. r. Miller and others.-The object Of
this case was to make Daniel Weaver, the Secretary
or Miller Y Russell, responsible for the amount oil
judgment obtained against the latter by their cred
itors, the State Mutual Insurance Company OF
Pennsylvaaia. After lengthy argument showing
the usltonable position of plaintiffs the Judgment
Of the Fourth District Court was affirmed by Judge
VOORHEES,. "
city 81 New Orleans vs.. Southern Steamship
Company. in this case for the reasons given in
that OF Hart " Co., the Judgment Of tile Second
District Court was amended by Judge Buchanan,