New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-03-29

ii Clrx HAIL. NEW on1sAHs,
Tuesday, March %. 1876.
Tho Council met this day at twelv
o'clock N. in regular session.
Presentation. Charles J. Leeds, Mayor
presiding, and Administrators Bertoli
Brown, Burke, Landry and Mccarthy.
The Mayor informed tho Council that tn
absence of Mr.. Pilsbury was caused BY hi
being summoned ct court.
The minutes Of the previous meeting
were approved and their reading dispensed
with. 4
Ceumuslcatiess frem the Mayer and Ad.
ministrators.
The following veto message of the Mayor
was received, read and referred to the com
mittee of the whole:
MAYoHALrY OF Nsw OHLRAHs I
| City Hsn. March 80. ls76.
| TO the City Council of New Orleans:
1 return, without my approval, ian or.
dinance to carry into effect act No. 20 of
the General Assembly of the State of Louis.
lana, approved March 8, 1876"
This ordinance violates tho constitutional
amendment which prohibits an increase of
| city debt, 10 you have provided NO means,
| and have mono 1T your disposal, to meet the
| expenses which will be incurred in it's
| for which it provides being for the benefit
of private corporation, the expenditure,
if made, will be diversion of the public
funds to an entirely private use.
Az the act imposes . duty without fur.
nishing the means to carry it into effect, it
demands of you what you can not consti-
tutionslly perform.
also object to tho ordinance because it
10 to carry into effect an act which, in my
opinion, is illegal and unconstitutional,
and. therefore, void.
believe the act unconstitutional for the
following reasons, viz:
|. First-The tax u for the benefit of pri-
vate corporation, and is in no manner for Q
public purpose.
The United States Supreme Court, in the
Topeka case, lays down the folio wing limita-
only be used IN aid of . public object which
u within tho purpose tor which govern
ments were established" ut can not,
therefore, be used in aid of enterprises
strictly private, for the benefit of in
dividuals, although in . remote or col
lateral way. the local public may be bone
flied thereby"
Although the courts have sometimes held
that railroad psrtook of such . nature -
to Justify Q tax in aid of its construction,
but few have 90 decided without division
among the judges Of which they were COM
posed; and in nome of the casea, believe,
In which the right to tax for railroad pur.
poses has been affirmed, has such right been
recognized where the road does not run to
OF through tho locality to be taxed.
A. the money to be derived from this tax
10 to be appropriated to build road more
than 200 miles from Now Orleans, and it
il not contemplated to use the tax to build
. road to or through this CITY. and a. there
is nothing in the act which imposes this
obligation upon the company, such de-
cisions can not apply, although the company
may have or express the intention ct some
future time to continue their road to this
point.
Second-This tax violates the article of
the constitution which provides that, taxa
ion shall be equal and uniform throughout
the State"
This article prohibits tho levy of State
tax except upon the whole State.
Although the title of the act is, ito au-
thorize with the consent of . popular vote
q special tax" etc., yet the act itself levies
the tax, with the consent of the people, and
has authorized NO one to levy 1t.
If it be maintained that this 10 local tax
levied by the majority of registered voters,
Isubmit that, this being by the constitution
Q representative government. the powers
conferred must be exercised by those duly
selected to perform the respective duties
imposed by it, and that the mass of the
people have no more right to make law or
levy tax than they have to exercise the
executive on judicial functions which have
been conferred upon other departments. l
see NO more rightin . mere majority to vote
away the property of the minority, than to
vote away the liberty or life of an obnox-
ious individual. ALI such violations of the
rights of person and property arc alike re-
pugnant to the principles of our American
system Of government.
In view Of the above article OF
can only be levied by the duly elect
ed representatives of the community
taxed, subj cot of course to such regulations
% tho law and constitution may have pro-
vided. ~
Third-This act violates the lately adopt
cd constitutional amendment which pro-
vides that tho city of New Orleans shall
not hereafter increase her debt in any man.
ner or form, or under any pFetext.
If this tax be levied, it will become .
debt due in four annual installments by the
city of New Orleans to the New Orleans
Pacific Railway Company, and will, in
effect, add over s.. 600. 90 to the debt which
this community has to pay, and will be just
a. much burden upon the property of the
city, a. if bonds, payable in from one to
four years, had been issued to the road.
doubtedly adopted in the interests of the
citizens Of New Orleans and its creditors,
to prevent any further burdens from being
imposed upon the city, by which they
might be injured, the one, by increased
taxation, and tho other, through the dimin-
ished credit thereby occasi0ned. deem
this tax one of the pretexts prohibited by
the constitution.
Fourth-This act violates the contract
made by the premium bond act, by which
the taxable power of the city is limited, in
any one year, to one and one and half
per cent.
As the former act proposes to increase the
tax to two per cent, it is rendered void by
the latter act, which repeats all laws in con-
flict, unless it be maintained that the rail
road tax shall be taken out of the one and
one half per cent tax already levied. 1t
this be the proper construction of these
acts, there will not be means enough left to
carry on the functions of government, pay
the quotas which have been fixed for the
police and schools, and meet the demands
Of the public creditor.
If this act be carried into effect, and the
tax be not voted, it will entail an expendi-
ture upon the city to no purpose, and which
will not be reimbursed by the parties in in
terest. If the tax be voted, it is probable.
that it can not be collected until the courts
shall have passed upon the constitutiOnality
of the law. The great number of suits
which will thus be caused will entail heavy
expenses upon the city, if the tax shall be
declared illegal, or heavy costs upon the tax
payers should the tax be declared legal:
As these costs will fall most heavily upon
the smaller taxpayers, it seems Ito me
proper that some measures should be taken
to test the legality of this act in such
manner as to save any unnecessary ex-
TQna0