New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-01-05

OOAXOAANS F" - ~ A~~~O
can not be violated without great danger
to the liberties of the people, can moi
consent to the imposition of these taxes nm
til the control of these institutions. for the
support of which these taxes are INTENDED,
is returned 10 the city
Under this system OF centrahzatlon NIL
lions of dollars have been squandered, OK
cessive taxes collected, and q great debt ac
cumulated. And yet the school teachers
and the policemen, who have performed
the labor, under pretense OF when
these taxes have been imposed, complain
that they do not receive the compensation
to " hich they are entitled.
Year after year have our citizens hoped
for relief. And time after time has the
hope been disappointed. An exhausted
community, no longer able to endure this
taxation, look to you, their CHOSEN repre-
sentatives for tlief.
am aware that stringent laws have beer
enacted requiring the levy OF these taxes
| know that under these laws the Mayor
and Administrators are liatle to removal
from Office for their noncompliance, and
that, in case Of such removal, persons not
representing this community nor re
sponsible to it will be placed IN charge OF
IFS affairs and will impose these taxes. But
so well satisfied am that there can be nc
relief to this oppressed peOi lie, Unless the
control OF their own local affairs is obta ined
that consider it viii be better that this
Council, representing as it does the wishes
Of this community, should be thrust out OF
office in yindlcalion of the rights OF Its con
s1ituents. than to be the mere machine
through which unjust taxes shall be- ex-
torted from an UNIV llilg people. II these
taxes are to be imposed, let 1t be done Dy
those who in no manner represent tbs
people, 80 that the great violation OF plin
cip,e NAV be seen in all It's naked detormiEy
And the responsibility placed where /,
properly belongs.
Even if there were no great prlDciple OF
local self government underlying all cnnstl-
tutions and laws, that article OF the State
constitution which Gays, Taxation shall
be equal aud uniform throughout the State,
would seem to prohibit the Legislature
from imposing tax upon this city when
it did not levy upon the rest OF the State.
1t can not do indirectly that which it can
not do directly. How. then, can it make
law compelling you to levy tax which 1t
can not levy ITSELF These laws have been
cunningly devised to compel by penalties
of dismissal from Office, the imposition
of these taxes, SO as to give a validity
to them which they could not otherwise
obtain; as, if they are imposed by you, who
NAV become legal by your action, as IL can
not well be determined whether your act
was the result Of your own will, or IN ODE
dience 10 these unconstitutional enact
ments.
CHARLES j. LEEDS, Mayor.
Mr. Burke presented the following re
marks, in connection with the Mayors mes
sage, which were received, and ordered
spread upon the minutes:
NEW ORLEANS. December p, 1873.
Z. A. Burke, Esq Administrator of Improvements:
SIR-YOur letter Of the twenty second ia
slant valves all consideration of per- onal
responsibility, and of moral obligation, re-
sultlng from the failure or ferusal TO per-
form plain official duty. We, therefore,
pass at once to the question of the liability
Of the sureties on your official bond.
The bond is intended to indemnify the
city of New Orleans for losses consequent
on official malteasance or non-teasance.
The sureties are undoubtedly liable TO make
good to the city any such losses, to the ex
tent of the amounts for which they have
respectively bound themselves in the bond.
What losses, if any, will be sustained by
the city in consequence of failure or re-
fusal to impose the taxes mentioned by you,
1t is not our province 10 suggest or antlci-
pate. Ii ia clear no other person than the
city Of New Orleans. the obligee III the bond,
can res Ort TO it for indemnl tcation; your
personal liability is much more extensive: IL
comprehends responsibility in damages TO
any one to the extent Of the injury sus-
tanned. In the case of Amy VS. Super
visors: ii Wallace, 1873, the Supreme Court
OF the United States used the FOLLOWING
emphatic Language: 1.-THE rule ia well
settled, that where the law required abso-
lu tely ministerial duty to be performed
by a public officer, and he negiects or re-
fuses to do such act, he may be compelled
to respond in damages to the extent OF the
injury arising from his conduct. There is
al III broken current OF authorities to this
effect"
1 he legal consequences Of the refusal or
neglect of the Board of Administrators to
impose the taxes directed by law, will be
mandam US to compel tte performance of
that duty, and in the case of the public
debt tax, the nullity OF all ordinances, reso-
buttons, and otf.e acts of the Council,
enacted or done subsequent to such refusal.
ms NUN. - IL expIessly declared in the fifth
sect". "a Of act No. "a, approved March 80,
lssC; and in case OF the police and school tax
failure to make the levy, will render the
Offices of the Administrators vacant, and
tt.erenpon the Governor can proceed to ap-
,Ioiut q Council who will conform to the
law. This result flows from the stringent
provisions of section nine, act No. l23, ap-
proved April l, 1874, and section two OF act
approved February 26, 1874, being NJ. 50.
Section thirty-t.o of the new city
charter, act No 7, approved March IT, 1870,
provides "th at any member OF the Council
who tails to perform the duties imposed on
him by the act, may be compelled to per
formance, at the instance Of any citizen. by
q writ of mandamus. which shall be tried
by preference both in the district and Su-
preme Courts"
Act No. 70, approved April &C. 1872, re-
quires the Council, after the adoption OF the
annual estimate. to proceed to the levy OF
the annual taxes required to pay 1.-THE city
de bt tax, which shall be based upon the
detailed estimate of the sinking funds anu
the interest falling due" and "a tax tor
current city expenses, including police
and exclusive Of schools" The execution
of all these laws can be enforced by man
damus. We consider the limitations i'm
posed by act No. 5, approved March II
1870, on the power of the courts to ISSUE
writs of mandamus against the auditing
officer, or treasurer, or other dlsbursine
officer of the city, have no application
where the State, through its Attorney
General, or the Board of Metropolitan 20
| lice, or the Board of School Directors Il
| seekine to compel the levy OF q tax tor