New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-07-21

The Mayor said, as he understood the
NATTER the ordinance was now ihnaAs
passed.
Mr.. Walton said he would like to change
his vote on the ordinance from yea 10 nay
He had voted for it not understanding t'
Mr.. Cockrem moved that the Admlnlstra'
tor be allowed to change his vote.
Mr.. Remick seconded the motion, which
was carried. =.
General Business Resumed.
Mr.. Shaw presented the following amend
ments to his Metropolitan Police ordinance
to be printed:
Add to title of ordinance the words: ."And
to defray current police expenses"
Add section four, as follows:
SEC. A. Be it further ordained, etc., That
this ordinance is adopted in the spirit of
concession and compromise, and is not to be
construed as waving any point OF defense,
or conceding any adverse position taken IN
any suit now, or hereafter TO be, instituted
against or by the city; and holders OF war
rants are admonished that this ordinance is
repealable at any time, and will be avail
able to none who do not come forward
promptly for settlement according to its
provisions.
BY Mr.. Shaw:
An ordinance to repeal ordinances No. 1886
and No. 533, Administration series.
WHEREAS, 1t appears that act No. 5 of
1859 is obsolete and repealed by Rays Re-
vised Statutes, which reenact all other pro-
visions on the same subject matter, emitting
only the reception of jury warrants for
taxes, so that there now appears no law au-
IL ,.f or
Jury warrants in the parish of Orleans, and
the city ordinances to that effect are there
fore illegal; and
Whereas, Their voluntary receipt by the
CITY has had an immoral and unsalutary eff
feet in giving an unjust preference to these
claims lmany of them based upon no actual
jury service) over those of other creditors
entitled to payment in their proper turn,
besides promoting brokerage and irregu-
larity and delay in the payment of taxes;
Be it therefore ordained by the Council of
the City of New Orleans, That ordinances
No 1896 and No. 533 are hereby repealed.
The ordinance was unanimously adopted,
Mr.. Shaw explaining that the preamble was
and not for official PRONUNCIATION.
Mr.. Shaw, in this connection, and as
bearing also upon the Metropolitan Police
warrant question, presented the following
opinion of Mr. Roselius, to be spread upon
the minutes:
NEW ORLEANS, March Is, 1862
To the Honorable the Mayor and the Common
Council of the city of New Orleans;
GENTLEMEN-You ask my opinion
whether the act of the Legislature APP
proved February q, 1869, making all war
rants issued in payment of the salaries of
officers. employees and members of the
Metropolitan Police. receivable for all par
ish and municipal licenses and taxes
within the limits of the Metropolitan Police
District is constitutional!
By the tenth section of the first article of
the constitution of the United States, the
States are prohibited from making ''any.
thing but gold and silver coin a tender
in payment of debts" The taxes due to
the city for the support of the municipal
government are exempted from seizure by
It's creditors. and can not be discharged by
offset or compensation. This question was
fully considered and expressly decided by
the Supreme Court in the case of Egerton
VS.. The Third Municipality, l A., 436.
1T must be conceded" observed the court,
''that the right of the municipalities to inn
pose and collect taxes is not derived from
any right of ownership in the property
originate in private right, it must neces-
sarily be deduced from public power; and
being so deduced, the taxes are as a con-
stituent part, and q necessary ingredient of
that power, no more liable to seizure than
the whole power itself would be. The
taxes of the State are inherent to its sover-
eighty, and never can be seized"
This decision was made in 1916, and has
been adhered to ever since. Even if it
should be conceded, for the sake of argu-
ment, that the city is bound to pay these
warrants, it is clear that they can not be
rendered in payment of taxes. AS regards
the act of the Legislature, with its
Draconian penalties to compel the officers
of the city to receive the warrants in pay
ment of taxes, it is in violation of the pro-
hibition of the constitution of the United
States, already referred to. and is there
fore null and void
C. ROSELIUS.
Mr.. Cockrem laid before the Council the
following communication:
OFFICE CARoyDELEr CANAL AND NAvIGArIoN)
Company, New Orleans, July /, 1871. s
To John Coekrem, ESQ.,, Administrator Department
of improvements:
/ have the honor to acknowledge the re-
ceipt of your communication OF the nine
teenth ultimo, with copy of ordinance No.
907, Administration series, calling upon this
company to comply with the same by build
ing protection levees on both sides of its
canal, etc.
| have searched in vain for any clause in
our charter, or in fact for any law or statute
under which any such call can legally be
made upon this company, and therefore re-
spectfully decline to comply with the same.
1t is true that for the convenience of our
business tOwpath has been thrown up on
no do nf nal nd Of IA
st. John. 1t is true, also, that during the
last disastrous overflow this tOwpath, to
our infinite satisfaction, served to protect
portion of the city from its
effects, and that care was taken by the Off
GERS of the company to maintain this for
tuitous protection, but this company never
considered that it was legally bound to DO
so.
C. BAOUIE.
President Caroadelet Canal and Navigation
Company.
Referred to the Administrator of Improve
ments.
BY Mr.. BOnzano:
Resolred, That the Administrator of Pub,
lie Accounts is hereby authorized to cancel
the assessment of ten thousand dollars
for the year 1870, against George w.
Race, on stock in the Canal and Clai-
borne street railroad, the same being ex-
empt under the provisions of section sixteen
OF the city charter
BE it enacted, That the owner or holder
OF stock in any Incorporated company taxed
upon its capital, shall not be taxed as an
individual for such stock. [Section sixteen,
city charter,
Laid over to be printed.
The Morgan Ordinance Again.
The Mayor inquired of the Council
whether it was considered that the Morgan
ordinance was finally passed to-day by the
refusal of the Council to reconsider 1t, or