New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-08-11
gestions and propositions embodied in the

l. BY suits to be instituted by the City
Council to attack the Metropolitan Police
the school and the park taxes as 'unconsti
tutonal enactments;" and
9. By suspending the collection of taxes
and depending on the public spirit aud lib
eralitv of the taxpayers to pay upon cal
''the funds necessary for the ample suppl J
of the government in it's running ex
penses."
We are compelled to believe that neither
| Of theae desires of 1.-THE Property Holders
Union"can be gran led by you, tor you pos.
sess no power to do a. requested, and the
taxes complained Of have been already
deliberately and uniformly contested, and
uniformly and frequently decided to be
both constitutional and legd.
As to the first OF the above wishes of the
memOrialists, we confess to some surprise
at finding its expression in the address,
since four of the gentlemen whose names
are signed to the paper have themselves
contested the park. school and police taxes
in most serious and extended manner,
they were among those who. some two
years ego, appeared themselves, or EN-.
ployed namber of tho first lawyers at our
bar, to dispute these enactments. many of
the cases went to the Supreme Court and
were there decided. The suit of the city IF
New Orleans vs. Esther Klein, e An, 4o3,
seems to have been made the leading case.
In it's decision, in May, 1874, the Supreme
Court, without dissenting voice, used the
following language: This suit. is for the
taxes OF 1871, payable in 1872. The de-
tense is (amOng Others) that the park tax.
the school tax, and the police tax embraced
in the bill, are for the purposes of State iu-
stitutions. and unconstitutional because the
tax is not uniform throughout the State"
etc. ''As to tho nature OF the public park.
the public schools, and the Metropolitan
Police. we are unable to perceive the appro-
priateness or force Of the objection. The
constitution does not require that every tax
that taxation By the State shall be uniform
throughout the State. Tho taxes now in
question are local taxes, levied by the city
in accordance with statutes of the State for
the objects specifed. as applicable to the
territorial limits of the city" These ques-
lions and others arose. and were decided at
the same time by that court in the cases of
the city OF New Orleans vs. Samuel Raw
Inns; city of New Orleans VI. Mary A. May;
city of New Orleans 70. John Fl. Kennard;
city of New Orleans rs. Il. Mari; city OF
New Orleans vs.. w. B. KoOntz; city Of
New Orleans vs. Archibald Mitchell; city Of
New Orleans vs. E. Lawrence; city of New
Orleans vs. Henry Uthoff; city of Now Or
leans VI. John i. Blaffer; city of New Or.
lesns Va. New Orleans, Florida and Havana
Steamship Company.
The full scope and absolute finality of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the
above cases can not be fully understood
without an inspection of the records in such
srits and the very elaborate and numerous
briefs prepared by the eminent counsel on
behalf OF the taxpayers, and in which
every possible suggestion of learned and
ingenious minds was set forth and urged
with all the power and eloquence of au-
thOrity to no purpose. We conceive it q
vain task to seek for new excuses or unseen
havs in the tax laws complained of, and
we can not readily imagine the reasoning
which leads your memOfialists to expect
the City Council might accomplish what
had already been strenuously attempted
from now doing by the decisions pro-
voked by some OF those who address
you. We are unable to appreciate
the wisdom of furthur opposition before the
courts, to the particular taxes mentioned
above, unless, indeed, s0me new and strong
grounds of illegality and unconstitution-
atty have been discovered. But no such
discovery appears to have been made. The
simple statement that Q particular fegista-
tive enactm is unconstitutional and lille
gal is an expression of familiar use, indica.
meaningless. To make it otherwise it is
necessary to point out the article OF the
constitution or the section of the law which
it is believed has been disregarded. and
wherein they have been violated by the OBJ
noxious enactment. In the absence of all
practical suggestions, we have found no OBJ.
lection to the tax laws in que stiol which
has not previously been raised, urged and
decided.
Your memorialists have fallen into an ex-
{ aordinary error, in stating that 1.-THE courts
have uniformly held that city administra-
ton has the right 10 contest or enjoin the
operation Of tax claimed TO be illegal, and
have as uniformly maintained that the citi.
zen, either in his individual, or IN their col
lectiye capacity, can not maintain, nor even
make such issue"-an error the more extra.
ordinary since. both collectively and indi-
scores of the citizens of New Or.
leans. and notably many OF the members of
che Property Holders Union, have within |
the last few years uniformly contested be- |
fore the courts the very enactments COM
planned of. We know Of no instance where
; taxpayer has been debarred OF so plain |
any tax. Many, many cases are pending |
,ven now in the courts, wherein the tax
payer has individually" contested the |
egality of some Of the tax enactments. or
the collection as against !
i'm. We have believed it our duty to per- |
nit every taxpayer. upon the slightest (
moving, TO have opened to him every faoil- !
" for setting up and urging in court any |
light he might believe he possessed. 1t is
to refer to the decisions and
admitting and enforcing the
axpayer's right to contest any tax illegally !
imposed upon him. Such opinions are
ound in numbers, in the reports of the
Judgments of the highest courts in every |
tate. Judge Dillon, in his work on munich
"a! corporations. lays down tho rule, as
ollows:
In this country the right of property hold
rs, or taxable inhabitants, to resort to
guilty to restrain municipal corporations
nd their officers from transcendng their
awful powers, or violating their legal du-
les in any mode which will irjuriously
fleet the taxpayers, such as making An un.
uthorized appropriation of the corporate
1nds, or an illegal disposition of the cor
crate property, or levying and collecting
old and illegal taxes and assessments
nder the circumstances presently to be ex-
lained has been affirmed and recognized
numerous cases in many Of tho States"
ectiOn 73l.
10 regard to tie suggestion that collec-
on OF taxes be suspenped we deem it IN
to write at length. The corpora
on owes many debts, which under onerous
'nalties, her officers are required to pro-
de for in specific manner. The amount
these debts falling, or likely to become
le during a year. is estimated at the be-
ming Of the year, and the exact amount
quired for meeting these obligations is as
ssed as lax. 1t is obvious that the debts | !
n not be met except by the collection of
q tax. The time for imposing and collect | ,
g this tax is designated by the Legislature; ,
ID the officers of the city, as any lawyer
i'll know. are left without discretion, bus
Ust QcOceed at or ahout the snecified time |