New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-02-06

must look at the text OF the constitutions
II provides simply that the Legislature
hereafter may grant certain exemptions,
but does not prohibit it from granting
other exemptions l see no inconsistency
between article ll8 and article I49. which
counsel for the city maintains repeats this
act OF 1857. The question is, whether the
failure to continue expressly this particu-
lar statute or any particular statute, repeats
II. The convention specifies the acts il ex-
pressly repeals. This act of 1857 is not one
OF those. and is therefore not repealed.
As before stated, the taxing power lies
alone with the Legislature. and where it
has exercised it or placed a restriction upon
others exercising it, ii is not repealed ex-
cept the Legislature says SO in some direct.
formal manner in way to make IL effect
ual; and as it has not done so, it stands as a
law, notwithstanding it may appear to be
inconsistent with other provisions OF che
constitution.
II is not necessary TO decide whether the
Legislature can exempt other property than
that designated in the constitution. IL is
not pertinent to the inquiry, but |
look at these two articles of the cGnstitu.
ton and find that article 10 does n o
expressly repeal this act which is com.
planned of, and when You place it in iuXta.
position with article llS, which is directory
in its character, it would be by argument
alone the repeal would be effected. That is
not the form in which laws are repealed,
because we find wherever the convention.
or any power that has a right to 1evoke
law. does it directly, it does not do il by
implication. II is only where laws conflict
with each other that the court Will decide
which is repealed; where they do rot con.
fiict, it will not do SO.
Ii the Legislature chose 10 rroiiUi. the
city of New Orleans from levying tax and
fails to levy one itself, then there is no tax.
alton. It can prohibit the city from levying
a tax on any particular property: it can
exercise the right OF imposing it itself.
Suppose the State should conclude. threug Ii
the Legs allure. that the city should not tax
tor any given purpose and claim that right
for itself. The range of the power of FAX.
alton the Legislature can withhold from or
commit TO the city at will. Whenever j.
does commit to the city the power Of tax.
atio', il can be exercised ny {. the exteu.
allowed by the act.
Here is . contract. That cont.ac. may be
exercised any time under the law. a. tong
as it exists on the statute books. Whenever
that law is exercised il becomes a contract.
and it is a matter of no Importance whether
it was exercised after the passage OF this
constitutional provision. if the law is still
in force. The law is clearly in force. be.
cause it was reenacted: it does not leave
The question to implication. And even il it
had not been re-enacted. think j: would
still be in force. except specially repealed.
because the convention repealed al. acts il
deemed inconsistent with the provisions Of
the constitution, merely leaving 20 the Judi.
ciafy to determine what other laws were so.
These acts were not inconsistent with .he
constitution. and were therefore 40: ;e.
pealed.
As to the policy Of the matter. .ia. j. a
question for the Legislature TO determine.
The city has nothing TO do with that: il can
not have any policy: il has no control owe.
the question OF policy at all. The city is
merely the agent of the State for the pur.
pose of administering branch OF the State
government. The power has been lodged
in the Legislature TO contro! the
methods by which the city can enforce is
and recover the taxation neces.
sarr 10 do SO. 1t can not execute its own
obligation for anything which i. binding
without the sanction OF the Legislature ::.s:
had.
L. can not levy taxes for any purpose. ex.
rep: through the authority 0: the !agisla.
ture. which is found in the charter and
other acts. 1t has n. Inherent power what
ever over the subject of taxation. The State
havin. reserved 10 itselt the high: 10 tax.
and having the exclusive power over tina:
subject. lnay impose taxes on those banks,
and may prevent the city in various ways
from doing 80. The State may destroy the
,!ty government by preventing i. from tax.
ng at all. Two or three years ago tke
Legislature prohibited the city from lew.
ng more than a certain per cent: and al.
hat the city collected above tina: amount
vas cecove:ed back br tue persons who had
,aid il.
am Of opinion tina. tie bank il exemo.
rom municipal taxation. jUa cIEeI: sov ..c.
eEGal..
First District Court.
ISroRMayIoSs FILED.
State vs. William Henderson -!..:ce.v.
State W. john Eeiiey.-Carry.n. COZ.
..led weapon.
State IS. William Eai!.-Eoit..-.
State Va. Joseph Ausus.e.--K:cw:n:'y
eceiving stolen goods.
State VS.. sam 5. killing.--I. Assault and
artery. =. Assaul: with dangerous
Weapon.
STATE vs.. Brown and McAlpn..-Ea'. i'm. !
risonment and assault and battery.
State Vs. Joseph C.!vev.-.issaui: and |
artery.
State vs. Lizzie Dar:c..-Assau.. an. ba..
Try.
SOILE YRosE.!'l ENTERED. |;
1.saui: and Undergraduates Williams, |
Larry Williams. Frank Perry.
Assault with '!argegov. weapon
y cob Phillips.
SERNiCIs.
State so. Victor and John P.c-e..-As.
arlt and battery. Not guilty.
State vs.. John Long Assam: with dan
sroUs weapon Not guilty.
State IS. William Milier.-Iarceny.
nlty. with recommendation OF mercy.
State vs.. Peter Wes.oa.--Assau.: with 4.
n: 10 rape. Guilty.
Second District Court.
IL r.. John \. Lee.-Ie:i;;on FOX adoption
ed.
Succession Of Martin Spinde.!. ST.. opened.