New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-11
THE COURTS.
Kighfh District Court-Suit Against th
City for Levee Dues.


Righth District Court-suit Against the
City for Levee Dues.
John w. Cannon, owner of the steamer
Robert Z. Lee, has brought suit against the
eity of New Orleans to recover thessum of
$42l0 in damages, etc.
Captain Cannon sets up that he has paid
the city 1880 during the last twelve months
for the privilege of landing, discharging and
loading his vessel at the levee in front of
the city.
That he paid the same upon the demand
of the officers of the city. who allege that
the several amounts, from time TO time, were
due under the provisions of the ordinances
of the city, and that unless he paid the
same, $S4 per week, his steamer would be
seized.
That he alleges, and is informed and be-
lieves, that the said ordinances of the said
city are illegal and void; that they violate
the constitution of the State and the United
States.
That the levee in front of the city of New
Orleans is a public place, the use of which
is common to all the inhabitants OF the
city, and even strangers, and most especial
Nv to the citizens of the other States in the
Union. That the attempt on the part of the
said city to put onerous restraints and
charges upon the exercise and use OF the
rights thus secured is illegal.
That the said ordinances on their face do
not purport to be founded upon any sup
posed advantages or benefits conferred on
the petitioner by the city of New Orleans;
they were not, and are not imposed upon
him upon any such grounds, but are, in
fact, lmpositions laid upon him for the pur-
pose of raising revenue for the city. That
the revenues thus raised'enter the Golfers of
the city administration in the same manner
as other revenue derived from legitimate
taxation. That the revenue thus realized
by the city amounts to very large sum
annually, which is thus illegally levied
upon the trade and navigation of the Mis-
sissippi river.
That the said ordinances are in violation
of the second section. paragraph ten, arti-
Gle one, constitution of the United States,
which declares that "No State shall, with
out the consent of Congress, lay any duty
on tonnage" Also of the fifth paragraph,
section nine, article one, viz: "NOr shall
vessels bound to or from one State be
obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in an
other" Also third paragraph, section
eight, article one, which declares Congresss
"shall have the power to regulate commerce
with foreign nations and among the several
States
That said ordinances are in violation of
the acts of Congress regulating commerce
between the States, granting licenses to
vessels engaged in the coasting trade, and
especially to tire act of Congress of 1911.
admitting Louisiana into the Union.
Judge Dibble issued an order for rule
nisi, calling upon defendants to show cause
ON Wednesday, the seventeenth instant,
why the Injunction prayed for should not
issue to restrain them from enforcing the
said ordinances complained of. The order
also directs the city to desist from the acts
complained of until the hearing of this rule
The Reimbursing of State Taxes.
Now into this honorable court, by his
counsel Hornor e. Benedict, comes James
Graham, Auditor of Public Accounts for the
State of Louisiana, upon whom a petition
and rule aisi for peremptory writ of man.
damus has been er yed, commanding him to
show cause why he should not issue, in ia
vor of relater, certificates amounting in the
aggregate to the sum of So, 1888 "a, under |
and by virtue of act No. 49, approved April |
10, 1871. entitled an act to reimburse certain |
taxes illegally imposed and collected under |
act No, SIS, approved April 4, 1865, in answer |
to said petition and rule nisi, for cause |
shows
l. That as an officer of the State of Leuisi-
ana he has sworn to support the constitu-
ton thereof and that in and by the third |
thereto, promulgated on the fif-
teenth day of December, 1870 it is set forth
as follows, viz:
"Article That prior to the first day of
January, 1890, the debt of the State shall
not be increased so as to exceed twenty-five
millions of dollars"
That prior to the nineteenth April, 1871,
the debt of the State of Louisiana exceeded
the sum of twenty-five millions of dollars,
and that the annual revenues thereof are
insufficient to meet the necessary expendi-
lures and current expenses Of said State,
under the present rate of taxation. and
will not hereafter be sufficient for such pur-
poses.
That the claims on which the prayer of
The relator is based were no part of the
debt of the Stated on said fifteenth Decem
ber, 1870, and are not at the present time,
and that said claims form no part of the
current expenditures for the necessary gov
,rnment Of said State, or for the main
enance of its peace and order.
That the General Assembly of the State
# Louisiana was without power to pass the
aid act in violation of the article of the
constitution above set forth, and it is there
ore null and void.
2 That said act No 90 of 1877 is unconsti-
utional and in violation of article No. ia
# the constitution of this State, inasmuch
IS it sets forth in its title that it is IAN act
o reimburse certain taxes illegally imposed
nd collected under act No. So, approved
Ipril A. 1866" whereas in and by virtue of
ection first of said act it is provided that
II taxes which were collected by the State
nder the third section of act No. So of 1865,
hall be reimbursed to the parties who paid
be same, and therefore does not express it's
bject in its title, and is null and void.
g. That said third section of said act of
S65 was legal and binding upon all persons
Tho paid taxes Hereunder, upon property
wned by residents of this State as well as
" nOnresidents, whose property had be- {
ONE incorporated with the property of eiti-
ems of this State; and that the said act was
nd is legal and binding upon all persons {
tho paid taxes Hereunder upon property
ne product of this State, whether owned
v residents or nonresidents, and the Gen
raj Assembly was without power to refund
axes so paid to the injury of other tax
ayers of said State
a. Your respondent AYERS that the amount [
taxes paid into the treasury under and ,
v virtue of SAID third section of the act | {
o. 55 of 1865 amounts to the sum of $685. {
IS SO, and that the act under which re- f
tor claims calls for the reimbursement of {
nd sum to the parties who paid the same, t
nd is therefore Indirectly an appropriation
exceeding the sum of one hundred thou t
and dollars, and no means are provided to {
leet such expenditure, and is in violation
article No. Ill of the constitution of
sos and in consequence null and void.
,. Respondent further AYERS that the par
es under whom relator claims, never COM
lied with the provisions of said act No SIS,
1865, or of act No. %, of 1866, amenda-
Try thereto, IN this, viz: That they did not e
lie sworn statements with the Auditor of I
ublic Accounts of the amount of their C
lles, either ON commission or upon their e
wn account, as required by the provisions L
hu | a