New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1868-11-09

| IL IS VI luGeEe3L W lLe puullS tuat tuc Cltui
= of Louisiana, should be sustained and be
financial integrity INDICATED by paying he
floating debt contracted in 1855, 1866 an
1867, and this conceive to be the object 0
E; the tax. Ga the other hand, it is of i'm
portance to the private citizen that b
should not be required 10 pay an illega
tax.
: Although a Democrat myself, am no
disposed to quarrel with this tax simpl,
because it is imposed by Radical Legs
lature. The debt which it is meant to pa,
} was not contracted by this Radical Legis
/ lature; it was bequeathed to them by pre-
vious administrations; the bulk of it con
sists of coupons, warrants and State notes
Tue honor of all citizens is involved in tht
payment of these obligations of eur State
and if the means devised to liquidate thes,
debts are lawful, l fail to see what we have
to do, as tax payers, with the character d.
the lawmakers who have devised plan
Of payment.
Is the tax lawful?
A tax is a contribution required from the
citizens by the government, and it is neces-
sary to the existence of the government
Union Company VS.. Bordelon, Z A, 1873 }
A tax can only be imposed by a Legis-
lature, or some authority to whom the Leg
islature has properly delegated the power
to impose tax. In exercising this power,
| tho T.afrislafnra L.,
! wide discretion.
The lgiStlom with which this power is
| exercised is not matter or judicial con-
sideration." (Bordelon VS.. Lewis, 8 A.,
472) ..
If, therefore, the tax be levied for pur-
pose of public utility, as for the payment
of State debt, and the power is confined
to its constitutional limits in attaining this
purpose, no court could properly interfere
with its collection; " the remedy" as the
Supreme Court of Louisiana said in Borde-
Ion vs.. Lewis, is at the ballot-box,n and
not in the courtroom.
'lt a Legislature constitutionally eXer-
cises power it is presumed by the judi
ciary. in just Difference to a coordinate
branch ofthe Government, that in the par
ticular cese it was exercised discreetly and
with deliberate and Just regard for the in
terests of the citizen. Police Jury VS..
McDonogb, A., 34l.)
The Judiciary have no arbitrary prerog-
awe to correct mere lndiscreti 1ns or errors
OF judgment by the Legislature. They can
only interfere when the Legislature has
palpably violated the Constitution, which !
restraints the making of laws within certain |
well defined limits, and when 1.-THE clear
est conviction of such violation is forced |
upon the conscience of the court. '-(New |
Orleans VS.. Grailhe, 9 A., 5G2)
In inquiring, then, if this tax is legal, we |
have simply to ask: Does it clearly violate |
any prohibition of the Constitution lit |
does rot, the legislation against it, which
l see proposed, will be useless waste of
time and money, and will intiict a usele.
injury upon the honor and credit Of our
State.
tits contended by some, and I believe
the point was first raised by a correspond
ent of the Bulletin, that the tax in question
is unconstitutional because it is levied in
1865 upon the assessment of 1867, and is.
therefore, retroactive, and that it could
not be uniform" because the condition
md value of property might have been
changed since the valuation of 1867 was
made.
In reply to this must say, N the first
Dlace, that when the act was passed the
assessment of 1867 was the lest one made,
nd the only true standard by which the
ak could be imposed. The assessment of
S6S had not been completed. | do not !
now if it is yet perfected but no matter, !
suffices that when the law was passed the
aluatlon OF 1867 was the l1st Cne ertanE
md in any suit brought to nulliiy the tax,
would be for the complainant to !
rove that the assessment for 1868 !
ad been completed before the tax |
as laid. In the case of St. Mary VS.. Har-
IS, 10 A, 676, the doctrine was laid down
y our Supreme Court that "the State as e
for the preceding year is the y
roper basis for parish tax for internal a
improvements under act of twelfth March, +
552, No. 175, where nothing shows that =
lie State roll for he current gear hod been u
'fnpteted." In The absence of proof to 4
re contrary, 1t will be presumed that the .
olice jury have taken the last assessment \
vi as the one on which to levy the tax" q
But the same Supreme Court have gone n
rther and decided that "the future imposi- ~
on and collection of taxes, according to a
1st assessment, is within legislative :
over, 2 and is not retroactive law.
In the case of Municipality No. ! vs..
heller 81 Blake, 10 Ann, 745, this point .
as expressly decided, and the following
,inion was delivered by Mr.. Justice
with the concurrence of Chief
lstice Merrick, Justice VOORHEES, an d
lstice Lea:
"Spoford, J. The defendants and ap-
'llants contend that the act of seventh =
ebruary, 1850, empowering each of the I
municipalities OF New Orleans to levy taxes =
capital on the assessment rolls Of 184S
I'd lS49, mot to exceed the amounts i'm
osed by ordinances already passed., as A
ell as the ordinances Of Municipality No. a
In pursuance thereof, approved nine :
enih March, 1850, are Unconstitutional u
I'd void. =
The statute is said to be unconstitu- ~
Onal because it is retroactive in its opera
on. q
1T is not an ca post fdcto law, as 1t has no c
lation to crimes and penalties
ARTICLE eight ofthe Civil Code. which ia A
g creture OF the legislative power, can not y
'ntrol the power that ereatedit.
"Howevr repugnant to logic and sound 4
)llcy they may be, retrospective laHsin u
vii matters do not violate the Constitution,
Hess they tend to divert vested rights or
impair the obligation Of contracts. neither
which can be predicated Of the act in :,
lestion. III
@
"But the law under consideration does i
1t seem to be obnoxious TO severe censnre. ~
Is not, strictly speaking, a retrospective pa
'r. II authorizes the future imposition ,,S9l
Id collection of tax according To a mast | -