Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-03-25


THE QUESTION OF Cry TAxEs.-I oh.
serve in your issue Of yesterday CORES.
pondence between the Mavor and Messrs
Cooper, Stokes and East, regarding the LA
bility Of property owners for the payment OF
tax arrearages due ON property that had
been In possession Of the Government Of the
United States, and from which, during the
time the tax now sought 10 be collected
was accruing the owner derived no income.
IL may be presumptuous for one unskilled
IN the law 20 combat opinions coming from
q source 50 competent and authoritative, but
plain man has some difficulty in following
portion Of their reasoning, and cannot
concur in some Of their conclusions. The
sum Of their opinion is that the property
holder is legally liable forthe tax levied un-
der the city charter under all circumstances,
and that the municipal government levying
the tax has no obligation to guarantee that
he shall be maintained in the right to hold,
occupy and use it-or to. at all consider of
that question-that in a certain state of facts,
am action for redress might be tenable
against the Corporation Of Nashville, but
that the tax is "destiny unshunnable," like
death. &
This is an important subject to many of
our citizens. Your correspondent is unable
70 trace out and apply all the principles of
law governing the imposition Of taxes but
one primary fact and condition precedent to
tax-laying is, that the government is bound
10 assure the owner of his right TO hold and
dispose of it, or to use it if he can, for the
production of income. Its right TO tax at
all arises out of the protection it gives in
ownership. The amount of the tax is the
price which the owner pays for this gnaran-
tee. When the guarantee fails, the right to
tax is suspended at the same time, and it
would seem cannot be legally enforced The
Government Of the United States, the power
which, in the cases under consideration,
placed the property beyond the tax-levying
power of the corporation Of Nashville, is
the ultimate protecting power.
But, say these gentlemen, the Government
Of the United States has the right to take
property for public use, and the corporation
authorities Of Nashville have nothing TO do
with the relative rights and obligations of
the government and its citizens. This will
be admitted; but let us look little farther.
The municipal government is a chartered
body only, deriving its powers directly from
the State il is true, but ultimately depend
ent for its validity on the supreme govern
ment, whose courts may be made the arbiters
of questions in which it may be concerned,
and because the Constitution of the
United States is the supreme fountain
of all the delegated power which can be ex-
ercised in this country. Now, itwould seem
to follow, that, If by act of this supreme au-
thority, the Government of the United
States, the property of citizen be taken for
its use, and during such use the citizen re-
ceived no compensation therefor. and de-
rived no income from 1.-THE ground-prece-
dent upon which the right of taxation stands
being for that time removed-that the right
Of chartered city corporation-the mere
creature and dependent of the supreme au-
thority--to tax the property when thus out
Of the possession of the owner, fails, as a
matter Of course. In other words, when the
ditions of taxation, the inferior power has no
claim to impose and collect taxes.
This view does not assume that the Gov
eminent has no power to take property for
public use nay even to decide whether
compensation will be allowed; but that this
being done, pro bono patbtico, the Government
itself, and especially no subordinate char
tered corporation, has the right, in the name
of the public, TO subject him to a further tax
on the same property. The enforced use of
his property for a period Of two or three
years was a tax, in which he contributed
fully his gudntum to the support of Govern
ment any further levy in such case be-
comes monstrous imposition, indefensible,
except in the pages of black-letter law, if,
indeed, il be there; and utterly repugnant
to every principle Of right and equity.
Messrs. Editors, the correspondence Of the
Mayor admits that there are many cases of
hardship in regard to this question, and it
states no more than is true There are in
stances in which, if this tax arrearage be en-
forced, the party owning will be compelled
to submit TO a sale at sacrifice, in order to
meet it, and as the weight Of legal opinion
thus far seems 10 be against them, think it
is the duty of the City Council to instruct
the Finance Committee and the Tax Collec-
tor to sit as Board, and take evidence
which may be offered to SHOW that property
was in the use of the Government,
and that no compensation was paid, and to
deduct for the exact time proven under such
all tax arrearges against the
owners Of such property. This would be
Just, and believe it would meet with the
Of all the taxpayers of the city.
CIVISI q