The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-02-14

Ia doubt IN the mind Of this court that the PEN
atty indicted by the section OF inst act, as wen
a. the title Of the law repealed BY that act are In
the words OF the above decision OF the =. e., an
auxiliary In the body Of the statute which need
not be expressed In the title.
The court now leaves the title Of the act, and
ed counsel Of the land could find any further OBJ
jections TO the title. As 30 the court, II has IN
vain searched the perhaps barren fields OF its own
legal attachments for further objections.
The next ground is that art. s, SEQ. j, exempts
said corporation from the payment Of any other
tsx but the one Of $4,000. The Legislature has
that right, under q late decision Of the Supreme
Court, not yet reported, but copy OF which mas
been read TO this court (City of New Orleans, U.
Lussy and 4. Reihlman). The construction placed
upon that article Of our Constitution BY the Su-
preme Court. ID that the Legislature Is not pro-
hibited, by the terms OF the article, from exempt
ing other properly from taxation, save that sctusl-
ly used for school, church or charitable purposes
II not prohibited, IL has the right to exempt the
Louisiana State Lottery Company from any Tar
Their taxation.
But il il said that that act exempts the Louisi
ana State Lottery Company from the payment Of
o pro rata tax on income. The article lis In
question says ell tax on income shall be pro
rata on the amount of income or business done;
the General Assembly may levy an income tax
upon oil persons pursuing any occupation, trade
or calling"
There L nothing to show that the General As
sembly has levied that tax; that article is evil
IDENTIFY permissive and not obligatory. The Legis-
lature may or may not, and until IL does there is
no necessity for decidingthat question. But, on
the suppositon that II does levy that tax or that
cs sA sysS
vent the Legislature from exemptng the Lonisi-
ana State Lottery Company from paying that
The only prohibition that the court can find in
that article 10 that the Legislature cannot tax
arbitrarily one income more than the other. The
tax has to be levied generally upon all incomes,
and then each person pays that proportion OF the
tax according to the amount of business done by
him.
The fact that the Legislature exempts certain
property or persons from the payment OF taxes
would not coDtrsvene that article OF the Constitu.
ton, which says: Taxation shall be equal and
uniform" ... l..
But on the supposltion that the court should
sustsin the objection OF defendants COUNSEL that
part alone Of the law would be unoonshtutional,
II not being material part OF the law; part
without which the act should cease to have any
effect the other parts OF the law would remain
constitutional. The next point to be considered
10 that that act was not passed In the manner and
form provided for by the articles OF che Constitu.
ton Of 1868, and required BY those articles. The
pages Of the journal of the House referred to the
court by counsel. are pages IS, 96 and ia, bat
the court by looking at page 80 OF that same
journal finds that on Saturday, the lat day OF
August, Mr.. Faulkner called up House bill No. Sc,
which Ia the act In question.
Mr.. Carr OF Orleans moved that the bill be con-
sidered engrossed and placed its third reading.
The counsel for defendants do not question the
regularity and consttutionaity OF that bill at any
previous passage therefore Its passage on first
and second readings Ia admitted TO have been con-
additionally correct. II is only the third reading
and final passage of the bill which Is questioned)
Mr.. Antoine of Orleans moved that the bill be
made the special order Of the day for Tuesday
next.
H.&;o, ra;S ~, tha tahla
On motion Of Mr.. Carr Of Orleans, the bill was
considered engrossed and placed on Its third read
ing That follows forcibly, for that was his pre-
vious motion. Yeas 80, nays %. Total 81.
Now, what the other pages IS and So OF the
journal have to do with the passage Of the bill this
court cannot see, for the bill, as appears by page
30 of the journal. had already passed its third
reading. and therefore could not properly come
up again, no motion appearing In the journal OF
the House to reconsider the vote then taken.
But the court will examine, out Of respect 70
counsel. the pages 95. s6 and Ia Of the journal
of the House.
Mr. Carr moved to take up House biz No. &C..
Mr. Brewster, Of Ouachita. moved 10 lay on
the table the motion 10 suspend the rules.
Yeas and nays called. Yeas IL nays ~. To-
tai so.
Several amendments offered.
Mr.. Carr moved 20 lay the amendments on the
table. Yeas 4s; nays IL. Total SO.
Mr.. Csrr called for the previous question. Yeas
and nays called and ordered on the adoption oil
the amendment offered by Mr.. Burrell, resulting
ss follows: Yeas AZ; nays 1. Total 40.
No quorum voting. Call Of the House ordered
Fifty.three members answered to their names
The chair decided that the question REQUIRED OF
| the adoption Of the amendment.
Mr.. Carr appealed from the decision of The
chair. The chair was not sustained. AL tha
| proceeding thus far shows that the member
| wanted no addition to the bill.
But be that proceeding Illegal. though the cour
shows IL was not, for 70 decree 1t Illegal 10 should
| be shown sfirmstively that there was not quo
| rum present. voting when the vote was taken OF
| the motion 20 sustain the chair but the journa
shows quite the contrary, for, on the call OF tn
| House made previously to putting the motion
whether the chair should be sustained. So mem
| bers he'd answered to their names. The court has
therefore, no right TO presume, with this wrlttel
official declaration In the journal, that some or tn
| members had Withdrawn, and that there was n
/ Quorum present when the vote was taken on III
/ motion to sustain the chair.
But, on the supposition that there was no quo
rum during ell these proceedings, does IL follo'
| that no regular action could ever afterwards b
taken on the bill Evidently, no!
| And the journal goes on Mr.. Carr moved tina
| the bill be now considered engrossed and place
| on Its third reading and final passage, and GALE
for the previous question. Carried. feas 81
The bill was ordered to be sent to the senat
| for conc urrence.
There is nothing unconstitutional In the pass
|
| Of this court. The metropolitan police board 81
| 10 whom the couDsels for defendant referred l
this case presented an entirely different question
from the one now raised II presented this ques
| ton which does not arise In this case: How man
votes does It take to prevent the reading, discus
sion and passage Of bill on the same day; an.
since that discussion is referred to, will take thi
TO say that Is the court is satisfied that II tina
same question were 10 come up again II would de
eide quite differently, for this court feels no re
luctance In acknowledging an error OF judgment
and the court feels relieved Of its error in know
ing that In q case before the Seventh Distric
| Court, In which that very same question came al
the iudge OF that court very properly refused
be guided by the decision OF this conrt 10 the me
| tropolitsn police BILL and very correctly rule
that the four ffihs Of the House meant the foul
ffths Of the members present or the four-ffths o
quorum.
The next point urged, 10 that said act violate
the Constitution Of the United States In this thu
1t attempts to regulate commerce among the Sc,
eral States Of the United States in combining Ii
sale OF said lottery tickets recognized by said %
az articles of commerce to certain special chat
| nels.
4 The court cannot see the application Of tht
article OF the Constitution OF the United States
the facts Of this IL the court understand tht
article, Il is for instance that this State has n
right 70 prohibit the importation Of goods. to lev
| an impost upon them. 10 tax them, to pass an