The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-04-16

Tie ease If Charles MORGAN asa,hs, sun 1T XII
n ",,uy ied in The United States Circuit Court
Mr. justice Bradley lad lowe n ans sa,h ,a ao'
also refer your Honor On this point 10 the case
Of BOWS vs. the city of Chicago IL Whlle iI,,itai
a,a t esd as authority. ana with approval the
oese Of Uooitile against the supervisor, 9,
Broome county. IL Now York heports' ocuit Oh
rh u same decision was male In W NIassachu-
seils. ib2 in the ease of Henry Brewer hnd
another against The cl'y 81 nprihehe'a o'i'
rhey decided in iha, ease that tho plaintiff II
Injunction had an ampH rnnpt ths si, ' hro,,sh
by the city. II That is law, Jnhoft ~ uSa N
this kind nobody can tell whether this ,ax WI,
eyer be imposed or not. An Injunction noes nov
liz 10 restrain the officers Of tbs city IRON s any,
hitting the question f. popular v VOTE aus
iseporis, $50. in tho case Of Hunnewell Hs. the
| CITY of tharleatowp. We submit then, ~ con
Guiding this point that tho remedy a Jaw oy A.
avar Ia a suit brought for an tlleEhi taN ~ "',
uuatn and perfect. Tho city has nc way n I'M,
ieaiing save 10y suit aud judgment n eaeh SUI,
an answer may be filed by cach 81 oies' p'a'n
vi If those plaintiffs can bring This sGt every
other person interested ~ te SAM 1''' ha .
abnui ,woiyn thousand taxpayers IN the city OF
New Orleans. aud they might bring 10 moro"
twelve thousand separate suits ~ ms tou,,. ,
Finally tho Court If Appeals In that ehse re-
fers to the fact that the tax payer mas Nv mi
luae remedy # s law II ovsr IL assesed aud
| levied upon his property, .,,a, ia, Uranium
III rafei here 70 what II called tho ifen,inm
| Tnnd law which provides teat any taxpayer
| nav resist In certain action on the patt ~ VIZ
ei,y. but it does not provide that any hxpaty9ip
my e me h.o she sa e /" bs ease 1t does
add to nor detract from the aW, ~ !. eN,ss'u
fore but simply provides ina. any ,aNu ~ iha
NM IN, 'nsiei II on the ground that II Is In conflict
wiih the provisions % this bill. and that ~ mate
rsepsaath" he INV and tho taxpayer Ian
guago of the law s that they may resist NOT ''a'
they may attack. ,., ,,, ,rhiah have
omitted 10 state. and which ls referred to IN ne
frat decision | read from ~ Michigan ~, lnn 1,
nyer ba voted. but no ono can tell whether u case
il he some day imposed, the plaintiffs WIZ haye
interest t. oppose asn 'f befora a ,hat times
comes II come 1t even. should,
In the caae reported in y Michigan, thq court
said that nobody could tell whether II ,he IA, ,ax
should ever be levied. the plaintills would thnn
have any rroperty which would he liable to the
tax, or any interest ~ opposing y. m osl tn
this Injunction shall be dissolved, we submit
tint act M. 20. tho execution Of which Is sought
oiso OF tho taxing power; that railway being u
public highway, haying right 70 eNpropr,,,,et
property, aud tho Legslapr claiming ann h nrEn
4 been decided by the highest authority in many
9 eases, and there being no strong authority ~
, mn ' improyed public highway. the Legisla,,
: ture hns d right to authorize the people q
Now Orleans TO vote upon 'he aue fr t sub
. | seriptinn 10 stock in this road y seems
hardly necessary to dctain your Honor hy re ~
n inc tie numerous authorities by wllrh !his
:. , ,,S th has boon settled In the United
j S,atns. refer your Honor first e ne very
II clear and conclusive statement made hy JUDGE
l. | Tnoley i'm his work on Constitutional Limita-
II tons. as 10 what IL public purpose or publi.
use II being conceded that i Is noe pr3par foa
t. Inv for a private purpose The question nnturall,
.; arises What il public purposn anu wh' y, =.
prlvase, r ,ha the Legislature has no right to i'm
Ii naao thc duty upnn the city Of New Orleans e
c low n tax and donate II TO II private person lor
T. nut when YOU come to consider the question
, of what l. public uso it becomes necessary Is
is inquire in the tirs place where me d,Eere.oh
y. page 12a. IA, attic, ,,,a h.,o hoa,
tr an excellent memorial to committee OF n
N Legislature az to whether, "a 9 matter OF pubii.
or poiicy that they shoul Id pass THIS bill
But h iS case SSH was 'I decided many years ago
the State Of Louisiana. by that very abe ~
et preme Court. which was presided oyer ,n py VI
tho Police Jury OF the Right Bank against Me
n Donogh, An, 9tt. the question came nl
,r MIL was in he wear is5s If there IL any differ
s. cnnn between that ease and this one am uhahl
ns to perceive it, The question there arose unu ~,
rt The act of March ~ 1852. providing Tor the sub
en- sorintion by the parishes and municipal cnrpot
ne atoms of this State to the stock of corporation
'le undertaking works OF internal Improvements
nd and for the payment and disposal OF the stoe
to The All Was declared to be constitutional .Th
,le question was TO be submitted by the Police Jui
er Ia vote of the property holders q tho parlsi
ey and If they voted to have tax laid the tax WI
II 70 be collected and certificates OF stock were
n Tho stock was to be given to the taxpayer, an
no the railroad was to receive the money Almo
every question was raised In That case that
raj III
succession Of McDonogh than this case is Tor u
Is nlnintiJs because under the constitution of lsb
III iha state was forbidden to extend any aid to
of poratons of this kind beyond certain amour
o. The point was urged that If the state could 4
70. rood that limit she could not authorize munic
Ter | nal corporations to exceed II. There Is no pr
hc hibition Of that kind now upon the state exec
So. n prohibition to increase her debt any turth
IN. than a certain limit, 50 that question cann
dc como up in this case. . ,
ial / will not detain tho Court by reading the cla
Of crate opinion Of Judge Slidel, Of which tn
for head note is an abstract No Injunction was q
he lowed in that case. but the succession of Med
,es norh wos sued for the tax. No one ever hear
or in These DAYS of bringing suit by injunction b
in fore it could be known whether the tax would
In th n ease Of the State against Graham. Sta
Ter Auditor. - Annual GA. in which the opinit
not was read by Mr.. Justice. Taliaferro. the Cou
on decides in very tcrse and conclusive terms. Il
lor question as TO whether aid can be constitution
his ally given to the construction of public highwa
I'll commonly called railroads:
tai of the county. of Fond du Lac. reported in
,od Wallace eTs. the supreme Court Of the Unit
hat States discussed this question with evident tai
ng ness rs If they had become rather tired of q
r. statement Of counsel that II tax levied In and
Is n railway was the donation Of the Taxpayer
IAN property to u private person. Judge Strong 9
lor organ OF the court seems To speak with n XII
rye of irritation of those arguments. az II he h;
lis heard enough Of them--as If this question III
md boen discussed for twenty or thirty years
rrc America. and had been decided 50 uniformly
XIV .ayor of the right to levy tax of that kind til
nto | Il was about time to stop discussing it,
NIT That was much stronger case than this Is
csc favor of tho plaintiffs. There was an ahsolu
Ia donation The county of Fon du Lac voted t
Dor money to the railroad company: but here the
tho is no donation at all, for the law is careful
or prescribe that In case the people choose to VI
the This tax they shall receive dollar for dollar
asc stock of road. the construction OF which II
, to been commenced, and upon which there is
incumbrance Of any kind. In the ease Of {
ion town Of Queensbury W. Culver, 10 Wallace.
/ To the same question came up again before the :
lat | prome Court of tho United States. on n writ
ne | error from the State OF New York, and Jud
oea Strong again delivered the opinion of the cou
has and seems to have been littlc more irritat
of than he was before that this question, so oft
Won settled should still be argued al ndnsepn.
will Mr. Francis Herman. who IL now one of I
lis United States Senators from New York aus
very distinguished man and lawyer. made
uld lengthy argument against the validity Of II
Of law but the Supreme Court OF tho United STATE
hat after saying that there was no prohibition to
has found IN the Constitution Of New York. decid
lest that the law was valid. altnougn there was TO
us an absolute donation Of tho money to the RI