New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-03-23
TAX RESISTANCE N 1925

b4I l. AI cNE'ACAIC SNNAAN ~
ana was then composed Of men whose
names are now historical Among them
were Francois, Xavier Martin, Pierre Der
bigny. Alexander Porter, Domlnlck Au-
gustus Hall, George Matthews and henry
A. Billiard. 1t may be fippantiy replleu'
VIC have no such men on the bench at this
dav. That may or may not be. but II Is
tbe same court, exercising the same au-
tboritv and entitled to the same respect
At the January term. 1926. the Supreme
Court of Louisiana took up case thus
stated in the record
Aperson taxed had applied for.an injunc-
ton to prohibit the defendant sheriff OF
tbe parish of Orleans, from selling slave
Of the plaintiffs, which he had seized for
tbe navment of taxes alleged to be due the
State. The opinion of the court was pro-
nounced by Judge Alexander Porter. who
adopted the following statement OF the
| case:
Your petitioner represents, that part OF
| the taxes, viz the additional tax imposed
| by the Treasurer of the State, on the lnhab
| itants of the parish of Orleans, by virtue OF
| and in compliance with an act entitled "dn
| act to grant relief to Lucy Is. Holland.
| widow of Francis Holland, deceased passed
on the eighteenth March, 1920, has been
| imposed on the said parish to procure the
reimbursement OF certain expenses incurred
| by the Governor of the State for certain
works, which, without any authority to that
| effact he had ordered to be done, to stop
crevasse which had broken in, on the plan
| tation of Barthelemy Macarty, in the said
| parish, in the spring of the year 1910; when
| work, independent of being ordered by a
| person who was not invested by law with
| any power to that purpose, was Ill judged,
| ayfravaoant and turned to be of no utility
| to the parish; that the law thus awarding
! the nayment of such expenses to be made
by a particular portion of the community
| ia an eTDOSt f0ctO law, and an encroachment
mon the rights of another branch OF the
government, viz: the judiciary, whose pro.
| vince il was to decide if the individual who
! had, without any authorization, incurred
| these expenses. was entitled to reimburse
ment of them, and if so, by whom that
reimbursement was to be made; that con
se0uently, the said law is unconstitutional.
and not obligatory upon the citizens.
The question whether this court
Had the power to pronounce an act OF the
Legislature unconstitutional was first ex-
amined. 1t was said that the necessity of
| tho judiciary sharing this power is SO in.
| eyitabIv the consequence of our livlAg I'm
der a government OF laws. of the constltu-
| ton or form of that government being the
| supreme law of the land, and OF that con:
stitution containing an express provision
| that all laws made by the Legislature con
trary 10 il are null and void, that the mere
arpInl 10 mi
| at once to the conclusion, and we feel thar
il il one of those self-evldent propositions
which require no aid from argum. mt and
| can receive none from authority.
So the relief at law against unconsti-
tutional legislation was even under the
constitution Of that date undoubted.
Judge Porter next examined into the
fact whether the law imposing taxes Is
unconstitutional:
The constitution OF thi, State having af-
| fixed no limitations to the exercise CT the
power of taxation by the Legislature, 1T Is
| difficult TO suppose even q case in which the
| xercise CT that power could be considered
| unconstitutional. or properly become the
subject of judicial interference. The only
| objection which can be made to acts raising
| revenue is ,l.ir inexpediency or injustice.
! and both these are exclusively for the con-
sideration of those with whom the consti.
tuition has deposited the pewer.
II the motives. which induced the Legs.
| lature to pass laws of this kind, were sufti
| ciept 90 render them unconstitutional,
there is scarcely one of their acts to raise
| money, that would not be void These mo-
tiyes are not always avOwed, but we know,
| in point of fact, that taxation In as often
| resOrted to to pay those to whom the State
| is indebted, or whom q may desire to re.
munerate for services rendered, as to create
a fund out OF which future obligations are
to be discharged. Ia all these cases 1t
might be said. with the same truth and
force as in the present Go to the judiciary
if there be any law to pay you; and if
there is not, the Legislature cannot come 10
your relief, because in doing so, they decide
that the whole, or part of the Stale must
| paw. The Legislature certainly exercise
| their Judgment in deciding what taxes
shall be levied, 10y whom they shall bepaid,
and how they shall be applied, but they
touch not the authority of the judiciary in
doing so. All these powers are by the con
stitution exclusively. and wisely, contided
to the representatives of the people
| 1t is therefore ordered, adjudged and de-
creed, that the judgment OF the parish
court be affirmed with costs.
The person taxed was in this case re-
quired by the court to pay the tax, and as
we had no such a,tute advisers then As
now. We may infer that the taxes were paid
under the ruling Of the Supreme Court.
for we have no historical account Of per-
sonal or popular resistance.
Now see the difference. The New York
UIorld teaches how the laws may be now
evaded. It says:
rfpeople do not pay. all that can be done
| is to seize and sell their property: but if no.
| body offers to buy the taxes can not be col
lected by distraint.
Now, Alexander Porter and Francois
Xavier Martin gave no such advice. and
the citizen who believed his property SUBJ
| iected to an illegal tax took no such course.
Such questions were submitted to a con-
| stitutional tribunal. and the decisions of
that tribunal were obeyed, albeit the tax.
payer continued to believe that the law
was Illegal. He maintained his opinion I'M
disturbed. but he paid his tax all the same.
When he did not pay them his property
was seized and sold then as it may be
legally seized and sold now.
.LeBreton rs. Mursan.i Martins Louisiana Re
.ogtl
s---<S--.-..
FASTING.
Boston. March l3.-The Governor la,
appointed THURSDAY. April }. as the day for
the annual fast Iclegraphic dispatch.
There are three sins against the stomach,
for which fasting is the divinely appointed
punishment: eating too mucn. eating too