The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-09-05

ton to the fact that this tax amounted to more
than one-tenth OF the whole assessed value of this
property. We then requested to sub-dvide this
district into two sections-the improved and the
| unimproved. The improved portion extends
from Peters to Urquhart streets. and represents
less than one-third of the total area The assess
mem ,or anss portion is ss25s2 drainage tax
The unlmproved portion extends from Urou
mart street TO Florida Avenue aud is assessed for
Saoo, LOO, drainage TAX upon same, $2S9 OOO
thus the dsanage tax upon this portion is as
above the value of the property, and is more than
conhscatOn, because the tax is not contend Isiln
simply consuming all this property. but carries
with 1t a lien or mortgage, upon any other prop
erty that may belong to the unfortunate holder
OF real estate located in this section under consid
Grafton. This unimproved section represents
two-thirds OF the Of this district and is onlv
partially improved-the greater portion consist
ing OF marshes and cypress swamps. The pres
double its real value and in support of this state
ment, We refer to the sales in past wears of
swamp lands in this locality.
Having briefly presented the facts with respect
TO the urban and rural divisions of this Fourth
Drainage District, we further proceeded to ex-
| anime before the City Council the rural division
separately. This section of the Fourth Drainage
District extends from Poland street to Fisher
mans Canal, and its total assessment is $500, 260;
tax is nearly one-fourth the present value of all
the real property here located
Sub-olvldlng this rural portion precisely az was
done with the whole district, we continued as
follows:
he section included between Peters and Dr.
quhart streets is less than third of the total
area OF this rurai portion, and ia assessed at
1907, 800; DRAINAGE tax upon same is s42, $40.
The section between Urquhart street and
FLORIDA Avenue, represents over twO-thirds Of
this rural division, and is assessed at s3S $40,
while the drainage tax is more than confscation,
for 1t amounts to 1893 000 the tax amounting
to nearly three times the total assessed value of
the property here sought to be drained But the
real value OF this property is not more than $780,
900, which, from this correct view, makes this
tax more than fourfold.
A further consideration of our affairs with the
City Administrators elected the important ad-
mission from them that they were powerless to
render full legal defense in any cause of our
people, IN which they might be party because
the city government was too poor to offer such
security as would enable the Administrators to
appeal to the Supreme Court OF the United
States.
Win this admission from them we retired, and
had further talk with Administrator Burke.
We reminded the Administrator of speech he
had made before the City Council, when the sale
OF the wharves were before them for oonsidera-
ton, and requested to have his facts touching
the wharf bonds pronounced by him as Illegal
The Administrator replied by handing each of US
pamphlet copy OF the speech in question, and
d
report. The next day we called on Mr.. Jonas,
City Attorney, and after somewhat long inter-
view, ascertalned the following facts in connec-
ton with his office: Upon the drainage matter,
the City Attorney informed us that he had re-
sorted to every possible legal remedy against the
Drainage Company, that he had attacked that
company upon every possible point, and in justi-
fication OF his statement submitted to U.S. and
through your Executive Committee to your body,
his briefs bearing upon this subject.
After very full discussion, the City Attorney
admitted that the Fourth Drainage District
could, for the present at least, be abolished by
the City Council upon petition of the property
holders Immediately interested, and upon our
asking him the question, replied that he would
recommend the Council to do so, should those
interested in that drainage district make such
petition.
The City Attorney reiterated what the CITY
Council had previously informed us, that the CITY
government was powerless to afford any relief
to the taxpayer
Your committee felt called on to reply, that we
conceived the first duty OF State or city govern
correct, and if the whole city admnstra ton were
friendly to this ides, We could not but believe
that some remedy was within immediate reach,
and we made the same statement to the City
Council.
The consolidated bond case was luded to. and
the City Attorney informed your committee that
he should consider it his duty to fight that in
terest.
Your committee then asked the following direct
questions OF the City Attorney, and received the
replies accompanying them below:
l. Is not city property exempt from State and
city taxes?
Auswer-Yes.
2. Is not property bought by the city for taxes
city property?
A. Yes.
3. Has not the owner two years in which to re-
deem such property?
A. Yes.
4. During the two years Of city ownership, ia
not such property exempt from both State and
city taxes?
A. Yes.
5. Finally, we inquired, should the State buy
for State taxes property upon which was owing
both city and State taxes, did not such purchases
by the State discharge ali taxes upon the Same
due the city?
A. Such is my opinion, but have taken steps
by hich this will not occur again.
This concluded our interview with the City At
torney, and your committee Withdrew.
G. Il. TEBAULr, VI. D.,