New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-21

ner, when law is SO written as to admi
OF two constructions, the court, not sue
ceeding Legislature, is charged with tn
duty of defining its true meaning.
The above principles seem to have beel
unknown to, or forgotten by, some partie
interested in the insurance business il
this city. They have been scheming 70
years to evade their duties and obtain ex
emption from taxation. In 1871 they oh
tanned the incorporation of section il
the revenue bill which was intended tt
exempt them from any assessment excep
license tax of one thousand dollars te
the State But it did not work well, anG
a renewal was made in 1872, by which
they hoped to succeed in consequence Of
the employment of more emphatic terms.
But litigation sprang up under this law.
The city sued the Salamander Insurance
Company on municipal tax bill, and
Judge Hawkins decided the case for the
plaintiff. An appeal was taken to the Su-
preme Court, where the judgment of the
Superior Court was affirmed Judge
Howell, in delivering the opinion Of the
court, copies the law both Of 1871 and
1872 applicable, and proceeds:
Notwithstanding the above legislation.
the city of New Orleans in the years 1871
ana 1872 imposed tax upon the defendant
under the head of merchandise, capital and
money at interest.
Upon examining the above statutes fsep-
ton three paragraph fifteen of act OF 1871.
and paragraph fifteen section one of act Of
1879, We have come to the conclusion that
each provisO refers simply to the license
tax, and not to taxation on the property
capital, etc, of the insurance companies
Under the act of 1871, the payment OF $1,000
as license, and OF one per centnm on the
premiums earned from policies issued
through agencies in the State in addition to
the said license, will exempt the company
from any other license for doing business
throughout or in any part of the State. the
one per centum being considered sufficient
from the agencies in the State, and the
$1,000 for the mother company. The act of
1872 treats only of the subject for licenses,
and is limited to that one subject. When
law Is susceptible of two constructions,
we will adopt the one which will give effect
to the law, rather than the one which would
render the law unconstitutional.
From this language, it appears to be
plain that the court thought any construc-
ton Of the law which dispensed with the
obligation of the insurance companies to
pay tax on capital, merchandise, ETC.,
would be unconstitutional. The section |
was so construed, therefore, as to relieve !
them from paying any further license tax, |
either to the city for the home companies,
Or to the State for the branches. Such is
declared by the Supreme Court to be the
rue intent and meaning Of the paragraph.
The court very plainly intimates to the
counsel for the Salunlander Insurance
company that their construction OF the
aw, namely, that the capital and other
property of their client was exempted
would render the law unconstitutional.
SUIT the insurance men We're not satisfied
nth this decision. They doubted the
bility of the Supreme Court to put the
roper construction of language. So they
pplied to the Legislature OF 1874 to know
hat that of 1872 really did mean. In
rider that there might be no ambiguity
bout it this time little bill was drawn up
y the insurance men and given to all
onorable Senator, which purported to
i've the true intent and meaning of a {
atute which had already been declared !.
Y the Supreme Court to have totally
tferent meaning. Had the Legislature
pealed the doubtful section altogether.
I'd either enacted new one to suit the I
or left the matter in suspense,
ere would have been no question raised :
to capacity. But this was not what 1
IS done or attempted to be done =
le real effect Of act No. 81, if it
We any effect at all, is to reverse
cision of the Supreme Court, and vest !.
the Legislature of 1874 the power to
what its predecessor two years ago :.
can't when it Incorporated law in :,
lsonably good English. If the Supreme :,
urt submits to such an invasion of its
it may IS well adjourn at y
ce, and turn over its tax suits to the =
gislature and it's election cases to Sen
" Carpenter. But we think there is !.
lie danger of such an event The court Fl
) once declared what is the true intent -
l meaning Of the law in dispute, and IN
not be likely to change their judg- .
mt on mere legislative opinion. This
W of the case shows that the insurance n
'nts who obtained the passage of act
81 have gained no advantage what W
r by their efforts to evade a public
y.