Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1866-03-16
BACK TAXES

EACH \
Is it right that the city should enforce
the collection Of the back taxes on prop
ertv seized and held during the war, as
property Of the United States? This is
a question that has been engaging the
attention Of the Board Of Mayor and
Aldermen FOR some time, and has notyet
been disposed Of
The facts in the case, as we understand
them. are substantially these: Soon
after the occupation Of Memphis by the
United states military forces, much prop
ertv was seized as having belonged to
% enemies who had a~bandonedit. The
Government from that time claimed to
bethe actual owner ofsuch property, and
as such held and controlled it, collected
and appropriated the rents, ignoring all
other claimants. II vas held by the au-
thorities that the Government had
a right 10 do this according to the laws
defining the rights Of belligerents. SO
absolute was the title conferred by this
JeIJgereHt right, that the Courts Of the
country could make no restoration of
property 50 held, save through the coop
Grafton Of the executive branch of the
Government, and none oft ever was re-
stored to the former owners, unless by
virtue Of executive clemency.
From the first day that the National
forces occupied the city, the Board Of
Mayor and Aldermen were supplanted by
the war powers. They yielded to the
pressure. laid aside the City Charter, and
from that day until the close Of the war,
the corporate authorities Of the city Of
Memphis were to all iutents and purposes
a dead letter. The military power ruled
and controuede erythingan everybody.
The Board Of Mayor and Aldermen
exercised no authority by virtue Of the
CITY Charter, andhadn no power save such
As may have been delegated 70 them by
the commanding General. Recognizing
the rf7it and p0rer Of the United States
Government over the city limits, the
CITY sent a special agent TO Washington
70 obtain from the President the power
10 levy and collect taxes for this prop
ertv. but in this they failed.
In the course of events the command
ing General thought fit to establish n Pro-
qis0aaI Cfg Government, which, under
his direction. exercised lis functions for a
wear or more. This Of courSe was not by
virtue Of any authority Of the City Char
ter. and of itself shows that there was at
the time no municipal organization IN
der the City Charter.
From all these facts, it appears cOnclu-
sive that the United States was, to all
intcuts and purposes the owner Of the
property in question, from the time 1t
was seized until the close Of the war,
when It was restored under the amnesty
and by the Pardoning Power, but for
which, the property would still be held,
owned and controlled by the Govern
ment of the United States.
Assuming this to be so, we do not see
how the city can collect taxes for the pc
Rod contemplated, when in reality no
CITY government existed at the time, as
authorized by the Charter. Nor do We
see how the Board can collect from the
present taxes that are said TO
have accrued when the property be-
longed TO the Government Of the United
States, and was by law exempt from
taxation.
The charter Of the city was grantedfo for
the benefit Of the citizen, and in consid-
Grafton thereof the right to levy and
collect taxes is given; and whenever the
city government loses the power to con-
fertile benefits arising out Of the Charter
II also loses the power 20 tax.
Under all the circumstances, wedOnOt
see how the city can possibly enforce the
collection Of these taxes; and IS a matter
Of public policy, we would say rub out
old scores. Impose no burdens that
are not clearly recognized by jus
tee and equity. Do not demand
Of the citizen compensation for
q thing he never received, remember
ing that under a just and wise admins
t~ration, the prosperity of the citizen viii
insure 70 Memphis a future growth that
will amply compensate for what the city
has suffered in common with every citi-
zen.