New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-06-28
TEE nITT vs. TIE COUNTRY.

the owner Of place fronting on the nver,
and he puts in plea Of exemption for
himself and neighbors from the levee tax.
This subject has been for years bone Of
contention in this State, though it was
once believed to be settled fayorably to
the city by the law organizing the first
Board of Public Works. However this
may be, the point is now raised that the
results Of the war have been such as to
Justify a repetition Of the demand that the
city should contribute its share to build
ing Ievees in the country Herein ''Ri-
parian" falls into a grave error. He shows
from the assessment rolls that New Or
leans pays more than fve-eighths of the
entire State tax already, and it would not
be difficult to prove that our annual ex-
penses for our own leYees amount to a
large sum. We get no assistance from
the country on our own levees, but are
constantly required to contribute our
money to save the plantations Of our
country cousins from overflow. 'Ripar-
ian" asks:
Then for New Orleans. What right has
she to shirk tins levee tax What would
become Of her if the levees we're neglected
and she inundated every year What
would be her prosperity If the rural interest
were to languish} Does she in her AFRO
gaace demand that the country should pro-
tect her and pay tribute to her too.
To which we reply that as New Orleans
is already taxed exclusively for her own
levees, both on the river and on the lake,
and pays fve-eighths of the State taxes,
it would not be so very selfish in her to
ask to be excused from the State levee tax.
We freely admit that the prosperity Of the
city depends upon that of the country, If
the rural interest were to languish, New
Orleans would see ''dull times" Our
people are fully alive to that fact, and yet
we feel that we ought not to be called up
on to run all the risks and defray all the
expenses necessary to avert the threatened
languishing business. The people of New
Orleans pay an annual tax Of about five
and half per cent on the assessed value
of their property. Besides this they are
asked to pay about three quarters Of mil
lion year for licenses. Our country
cousins escape with tax fraction over
two per cent, and have but small paroch-
ial taxes to trouble them.
Again, Riparian shows more fully from
the assessment rolls the justice of the
Auditors conclusions, and weakens his
own case. We use his figures, which we
believe to be quite correct He shows:
Total assessment for 1860 $40, l64, 1868; of
this the country bore $344, 1880, 65S and the
! civ SI25. 284 .365. The total for 1871 is
| $3.50, 594, Az; for the country S92, $3.50, O52
and the city S15S,214,365. Here then, We
have loss by the war of the entire State OF
| $219, $40, 564, of which the country bears
| S252, 500, 606-mOre than the loss OF the
whole State. WhyY Because New Or
leans gained $32,936,O6O
The fact is New Orleans gained nothing
by the war. That is we did not receive
an additional foot of land; but the natural
increase Of population, which has been
rather slow in comparison with more
favored cities, has opened up few vacant
squares, and caused some few buildings to
be erected. The increase on the assess
ment rolls represents rather the enhanced
pretensions Of property owners than an
intrinsic augmentation Of the value Of real
estate. The city as unit has nearly the
same description of wealth out Of which
to secure its annual earnings that it had
in 1860. And as it must depend upon the
country for its business and resulting
profits, the advance in value, small as it
is, is attributable to the improved pros
poets of the rural districts since the war,
not to any actual accession within the
corporate limits.
The decrease on the assessment rolls
for the country parishes is caused mainly
by leaving off the item of slaves in 1871.
But this is so much gain to the planters !;
for while they still enjoy the labor of
these same slaves, and depend upon it to
get out their crops, hire it and make their
profit on it as they did before the war,
they are not required to pay taxes for it.
Before the war the country owned slaves
to the value of $3.50, 900, 600, upon which
the assessors levied an annual tax. Since
the war the same planters enjoy the bene-
fits Of the labor of the same slaves, now
freemen, and are not required to pay a
cent of tax for the privilege. We look
upon this as a great benefit and advan-
tage, instead of its being, as Riparian evil
IDENTIFY supposes it, a hardship. Were the
country required this year, for instance, to
pay tax upon the assessed value Of its
laborers according to the mode of ascer-
tainment existing before the war, they
would be presented with bill of S., 481, :
goo, in addition to the present assessment
| Instead of q loss there is manifest gain,
at least in the item relied upon by
Riparian; for the country parishes
depend solely upon the crops for every
thing. Without labor there could be no
crops. But there has been no falling off
in labor. In 1869 this State raised within
few hundred thousand bales of the
largest crop ever produced by it. Planters
are merely required to hire their laborers
and pay them their wages. Before the
war they were required not only to buy or
hire the same laborers, but pay heavy
State tax upon them as property besides.
We suppose that Riparian will admit that
il would not be q great calamity to