Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-07-28

pavement you say "that the laborinl
men Of the city should favor tax laic
equally on ali property to pay THU
paving debt" Permit me respectfully
10 join issue with you, and give the othe,
side, and the seeming injustice IL would
work to great majority of our citizens,
should your views be carried out Know
ing the fairness which has ever charac'
terized your paper in giving free dis
cussion TO all works Of public improve
ment, even should 1t initiate against your
views, az we'll. perhaps, as frequently
your interest, leads me to hope that you
will give the other side respectful
hearing.
: I live one and half miles from Cour,
Square, bat within the city limits. l have
no streets at all; and in winter the roads
from my house TO the city are, with q
wagon, carriage or vehicle, almost ALSO
lufelv impassable. This / have seen
repeatedly during the last winter, SC
much so that am with buggy or wagon
as seriously Inconvenience, by mol
being able to get to the business portion
of the city, as II l lived miles beyond the
city limits, where l would have no taxes
to pay. The city furnishes me not eren
with roads that are passable, let alone
Nicolson pavements to drive on at my
will and pleasure; and yet is II just that
I should be taxed for privilege which
you have at all times, and which i at best
can enjoy but to limited extentY Is 1t
not sufficiently burdensome upon me to
pay the regular taxes assessed by the
city, when the city furnishes me with
neither gas nor police-the two great pro.
tectors guaranteed in the formation OF
cities-and for which the citizen surren-
ders up his rights, and permits himself
to be taxed2 l have to pay already three
times the tax that my neighbor does, who
lives only a stones throw from me, and
on adjoining lots, but yet beyond the city
limits; and yet how am / benefited
greater than he Have ] gas Have
poliee2 Have. l good roads? None.
And yet is it just that / should have sad
died upon me the payment of this Nicol-
son pavement taxi Is my property en-
HANGED in value by this pavement being
laid in front Of your store2 | cant see
it. And yet, to show that am not
to shrink from my portion
of the public burthen, if you will
pave from my house to the city, and
pave all the remaining streets OF
The city, though having large front, yet
will not hesitate to pay my portion oil
he tax, for then ! would be receiving a
mid pro quo-otherwise / would not
Admitting that It is difficult to fix tax
n which its collection will notfallseverely
lpen some, yet others make those who
are directly benefited shoulder the re-
,ponsibility. Not discussing here the
manifest injustice Of the recent enlarge
nent of the city limits, whereby thou
sands Of negro voters will hereafter make
Radical rule feltl in Memphis, while the
Did corporate limits we're amply suffi-
Gent to contain a population far greater
han Memphis may hope to have in ten
years Not discussing this first great
Injustice, the constitutionality of which
am informed is soon TO be tested in the
courts, yet submitting to that now to
De saddled with the payment of Nicolson
tax, will certainly meet with
opposition from every SUBURBAN.
Our correspondent lives out on the
border. That is his misfortune, not our
ault. If he rides through the mud, we
rudge on foot. If oil is cheaper than
,as, how is be hurt because we have gas
md have to pay for it2 If be is as we'll
protected where be is. as we are where
he police is more needed, what is there
n that to grumble about? If he objects
o paying half per cent. Of the value of
lis property to help improve the city,
which adds by its vicinity to him four
old to the value of his property, should
We be compelled to pay twenty per cent.
,f the value of ours,in order that we may
,e benefited three per cent, and in order
o save him from paying anything what
,ver? He was benefited by the city
vhen be was out Of the corporation.
Shall be also escape all expense now that
le has got in2 He has his share in the
,eneft of our wharfage tax, jails, bridges,
and common schools, as well
IS in the enhance ment of value Of his
which these things bring. Does
is claim to avoid a common public bur-
len for common public benefit, because
lone Of the public incomes come to his
pocket, because be encourages no crimes,
erds it around the bridges, avoids the
and has no children of his
,wn to send to SCHOOL, If he does be is
lcting on wrong principle.
He does us no more than justice when
ie gives us credit for fairness, even when
IN opposite view to our owe initiates
against the views We bold, or even
against our individual interest. We do
not profess to be so unlike him, who
bases his argument on his own interest,
that we wholly ignore any little interest
we may have in the city. But, il that
was all, we do say on our personal
and honor, that we are so far
disinterested that we would sacrifice any
interest We may have before we would
advocate any unequal, unjust and OPP
pressive taxation on others for our own
benefit
But this course Of argument is all
wrong. It should not be countenanced,
and no public issue should turn on
question how A. or B. is to be affected
by decision about to be made. Whether
the property Of one is benefited or that
of another injured, and what individual
and exceptional results may obtain, is
not now to be considered. But this
what is the most fair, equitable, legal
xvbt.L A.. r