Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-07-22

Meeting Of Property Holders and
NJ, Tax-Psyers ~ the Muniefpsi
Court Room Last
1 Escnfng-
speeche. and ReseIutiens-Tbc city
Council Requested 20 stop
~ ..tNIi the fsvfnE.
An Rsual Al vaIerem TAX on ali
Properly Recommended.

...H
! The meeting Of properly holders and
tax. payers, called to consider the subject
Of paying the Nicholson pavement tax,
fairly jammed the Municipal Court room
last evening, and was largely composed
ofthe intelligence and wealth Of the city.
| Very few, indeed, but the older citizens
| Of the place were to seen in the crowd,
and in looking among the honest faces
and gray heads present one was irresist-
ably carried back to the good old times"
Of dirt roads aud light taxation.
Shortly after eight o'clock, the meet
ing was called to order, Chas. Kor-
trecht, EGG, elected chairman, and @. A.
Stovall requested to act as Secretary.
On motion, the chair appointed the
following committee Of seven to draft
resolutions expressive Of the sense Of the
meeting, viz: B. B. Maddell, Minor Mer-
riwether, j. B. Musso, Chas Jones, s. A..
Norton. John Larkin and J. D. Williams.
Mr.. Williams declined serving on the
committee, and +. A. Tyler was APP
pointed in his stead, and thereupon the
committee retired to discharge their
duties. 1870 .o4
Mr.. 'Wardlow Howard taking the floor,
spoke at some length upon the subject
under consideration. He opposed in
strong terms the few being taxed for the
many, and thought unless the right was
given those who were taxed for the
pavement to put up toll gates
on the streets paved and collect
toll, they ought, not be made
to pay for it He recollected the old con-
dition of the streets, had seen empty
drays stalled on Front and mules
drowned on Main street, and he did not
wish TO be understood as opposing the
improvement, but he was emphatically
opposed to the method adopted for pay
ing for il. go' ns'p4ot a''e
Gen. p. II. Glenn spoke both against
the pavement and the manner Of paying
for il. He did not think the city was
at present in condition to indulge in
such expensive luxuries. He never had
known times go dull as now. 1t was
years since he came to Memphis, and
there was not as much business doing
here to-day as there was forty
years ago, when Eugene Magevney
taught school in Court Square, and the
Square was considered two miles out Of
town. He regarded the owners oflanded
property as the poorest men in the town,
and of all others, the least able to pay
for the paving. As for himself, he was
willing to give what little realty he owned
to anyone who would pay the taxes on it.
He never was in such fix in his life. He
/ was even worse off than when boy,
when he had coffee only once a week,
bread twice day, and meat only twice
week Between seeing his family
starye and paying for the pavement he
was opposed to the pavement all the
time. -.
| MT. B. Micou thought the proposed
plan of an ad valorens tax on the prop
erty fronting the paved streets, although
somewhat better than the existing sys'
tenn, was yet far from being just and
equitable 1t would be an intolerable
hardship on the proprietors of lots on
those streets to be compelled to bear the
entire burden of an improvement that
is enjoyed in common by every
citizen and that claims to advance the
prosperity of the whole city, and not
that of the few proprietors along the
paved streets. 1t is only on the ground
that the pavement conduces to the gen
srdl enhancement Of property in the city,
to the general convenience Of the inhab-
itants, and to the general increase OF
business, that the municipal authorities
could claim any right to ordain its
construction and provide for its pay
ment by any public fund. The
admission that it is mainly bene-
fetal to those whose land is adjacent to
those streets, and that therefore such
persons are exclusively taxable for it is
equivalent to saying that the corporation
government may select certain locality
in the city as the exclusive subject of its
guardianship and care, to construct there
improvements without limitation as to
expense, and then call on its unfortunate
favorites to meet these expenses on which
they were never consulted. The fact is,
that If benefit at all it is public bene-
ct, and not confined to the particular
streets. The owner Of lot on an un-
paved street. but only the depth Of one
lot remote from paved street, reaps an
advantage very little inferior to that en-
joyed by the proprietor on the latter.
And yet, under the existing aud
the proposed plan, this contiguous
lot is not to pay one cent of the cost.
Is this fair Is it justa The same may
be said of lots still farther removed from
the pavement If there is any benefit to
anybody it is felt by every property
owner in the city, according only to his
contiguity or distance from ii. He could
not see anything right in laying the whole
hurdan of a General benefit on the few