New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-26

:
ge61s, ~ y.
|. &a Rs sIls ~ slsll s al 81
| trict q Louisians. and ordered to take the
p' r. the 49, S of the New York Mail Steam
2 abi1 q nnasi 4. the City Of New Orleans,
| : wit Of error having been taken u this
ttxusGtUth0 NuYFeus5 curt d tuC onIteu
States, tho following mandate aOf' ea9 court
was fled, and ordered to be recorded;
"WHEREAs in the present term OF Decem-
Der, in the year Of our Lord 1863, tno sai9
| cause came in to be heard before the sara
Supreme Court, on the said Transcripts on
| the record, and was argued by counsel ON
consideration whereof. it 10 now mere
ordered by this court, that this writ OF error
| be, and the same ID hereby dismissed with
| costs, and that the plaintiff recover against
| the city of New Orleans twenty dollars
herein, and have execution therefor; and It is
| further ordered that the cause bo remanded
| to the United States Circuit Court tor the
| District Of Louisiana"
| In the case Of John D. AlcLcmore vs..
| Louisiana State Bank, it was ordered thata
| commission Issue to . Justice of the peace
| in Carroll county, Mississippi, to take the
| testimony of certain witnesses in tho afOre-
said county, the commission returnable IN
| thirty days. ''A''
In the case of the United States vs. Dun
| can Smith. the default against defendants
| was ordered tn be set aside. T..
| In the case of HOstetter & Smith W. Her
mann, Vignes & Israel ct al. the Court took
! under alvisement the judicial confession OF
the defendants for judgment against them
in accordance Herewith.
In the case Of the United States vs.. mo
| mas III. BallOwe, the rule taken BY n. A:
wilkins and w. C. Hebener on the United
| States Marshal to have their fees and
| mileage paid from Richmond, Virginia, to
| New Orleans and back, the court ordered
i the payment Of fees and mileage to New
| Orleans, but not for returning.
In the case Of A. NJ. d'Aubigne We. j. y.
Noyes, the demurrer was dismissed ana
leave was granted to the defendant to Tile
y proper plea.
In the case of Lane 4 Bodley vs. O.. A..
Pierce, the matter in controversy having
been amicably settled, suit was withdrawn.
The court took under adviscment the rule
for new trial in the case Of j. 6. Cocks
VS.. Charles lizard. s''e3
UnIteG States District Court. Hss. E. H.
| Durell, PresidiaS.
The Infringement Of patcne case, L.
Woltiey We. A. A. Humphreys ct al, was
resumed. The evidence having all been
pnt in, William Il. Whitaker, Esq, OF cOun-
sci for plaintiff, entered upon the argument
The case was then continued until to-mor.
row. Richard Travis, one Of the witnesses
subpeDaed in this case not having appeared
was ordered to be attached and fined fifty
dollars. atlss1 s5as sgs.
The echssl Beard Mandamas Asainst The
Cfty-JuAse Leaament Refases The
, State ON the relation of H. C. Dibble VS.
Il the City of New Orleans.-This is an actor
) by mandamus to compel the Administrator
!, Of New Orleans to levy an amount o.
about @35O,OOO by taxation ON the taxable
property of the inhabitants of the city Of
New Orleans, to meet the annual expenses
Of the public schools in the city Of New Or
: leans, under the direction and supervision
of the Board o. School Directors for the city
of New Orleans. The city appears, and fol-
answer files a general denial, and fol
further answer AYERS that it is prohibited
by law from levying taxes to an amount
exceeding two per cent; that it has already
and that further taxation is therefore i'm
= possible under existing laws. ~
I It would be sufficient for the court undel
I the general denial filed by the city to decide
, at once that from the testimony on file il
does not appear that the city has ever been
, called upon in its corporate capacity to levy
| the tax required, and, therefore, that the
) lies in cases where the party called upon t.
| do the thing refuses to do it. The testi
: mony of Judge Dibble shows that he called
. informally upon several of the Administra
tors, who told him that they would not levy
such tax, but it nowhere shows that III
: called upon the Administrators in their OH
cial capacity and in their official session.
| But as another question has been raised
the court will now proceed to consider it
. and 20 supply what it deems an important
point in the defense of this case, which has
, not been made by counsel, but upon which
, the court thinks it necessary to pass, il
l order that tile laws regulating taxation, a
| far as public schools are concerned. shall
be, properly understood.
! From the nature OF the arguments mad
5 by counsel for plaintiff in this case, it fol
lows that if the court cOmes to the cOnclu
. sion that the section seven of act No. AZ o
3 the Legislature approved ON the third o
: March,, limiting the power of taxation dele
l gated to municipal corporations to two pc
e cent is constitutional, the mandamus vii
not lie. Now. there is NO doubt in the min,
, Of the'court that that section is constitu
. tional The only objection made to its CON
. stitutionality is the fact that it is not EN-
. braced in the title of the act. As very wei
q said by the Supreme Court in the II A. r.,
: is not necessary that the title of an act shoul
| contain all the incidents of the body Of tn
' act, otherwise the title would have to be Q
, long as the body of the act, which would b
q | an absurdity; it suf6Qes that the title shoul
. call the attention Of the law maker and cit
t zen to the main object or objects of the &C
/ Of which the body is an incident. The &C
is entitled ian act to provide . revenue, t
levy and collect taxes" Is not that it'll
expressive enough! To levy anil collec
taxes-taxes without distinctiOn-texes NO
restricted by any adjective. 1t void be q
well for this court to decide that the secOn
section of that act, exempting certain prOI
Z erty from taxation, 10 unconstitutional. b.
cause the title does not read, ian act to lev
3 and collect, and not to collect taxes" OF
I ian act to levy and collect, and exempt frol
!, taxes"
t But it may be urged with ingenuity,
I not with plausibility, that the above &C
was passed on the third of March, 1871
I and that the act under which petitione
: claims was passed on the sixteenth 9
9 March, 1871; that, therefore, the subse
9 quent legislation repeats the former one
Let it be SO. Then the objection to til
seventh section of that act of the sixteent
of March would be that it is unconstitu
G tional and in direct violation of articl,
0 112 of <ho nnnsf;f,fiosn of 1869 -1,;c