The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-01-16
THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL.

L
THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL.
We cannot be mistaken In saying that
the action Of the. City Administrators in
regard TO the taxes the levy OF which the
Mayor proposed to decline has greatly
disappointed public expectation. They
were elected as the representatives Of
men struggling for freedom, and, 1t Is
TO be regretted, have proved themselves,
In the opinion OF many, unequal totheir
arduots but honorable position In this
matter. There IRE times and occasions
when many think that to fail In what
the people regard as direct earnestness
Of purpose, Is TO fail In everything.
As the opportunity Is now lost beyond
recall, II may seem TO some unnecessary
| TO discuss the subject, but we think diff
fercntly. That might be true were the
purpose Of the discussion merely to cast
feproach, but It Is not SO. It is mainly
to keep the attention OF the people
directed to the true principles on which
Our liberties must rest, and urge upon
them, under all circumstances, to main
tain those principles vt whatever cost.
| We took occasion the other day to say
that the questions discussed by the
Mayor were not Of d character TO be de-
ternined by d mere lawyer, whose men
tai habit IL was to rest In his inquiries as
soon as he should find the dictum Of u
judge upon the subject under considcra-
ton. Yet, judging from the opinion
which was appended to the proceedings
Of the Council in two Of our contempt
raries, 1t was precisely thus that II was
decided That opinion was founded upon
the narrowest and most technical view.
It gave no consideration to the great con
stitutional principles which underlie the
subject and which were 80 ably expound-
cd by Judge Cooley In the extract made
by the Mayor, perhaps because the OK
perience Of late years Of those atteynies :
whose ability Is conceded has hd them
to adopt the opinion, 30 energetically
expressed ten years ago by Mr. Thad-
deus Stevens, that he was d dwelling
fool who talked about the constitution
We trust. however, that the deep glootu
of lawless violence which has attended
upon Radical rule Is about to pass away
and we think that we can, even now, see
the dawn Of tho coming day. We can
not, then, permit ourselves, through de-
spair, to abandon our liberties.
The first step In any controversy, the
object Of which Is the attainment Of
truth, Is TO obtain definite idea Of the
points ut issue. Taking, then, the police
bill as o type Of tho legislation objected
to, we shall state It's character and the
objections which are made to IL. BY that
bill the police Of the city IL placed en-
tirely under the control OF the Governor,
through the medium OF board appoint
ed by him and practically removable at
his will. This board makes estimates Of
the sum necessary for the support Of the
police and the City Administrators are
required. under heavy penalties, to levy
the taxation requisite to raise that sum,
which Is paid to the State Treasurer and
by him disbursed on the warrants Of any
two members Of the board. The objec-
tions made to this Legislation are LIST.
That II violates the right Of local self
government; I'd. That II separates taxa
ton and representation which, by the
constitutional law Of America, are indis-
soluhly connected; Sd. That Il delegates
Legislative power In manner wholly at
war with the law and with every .prin-
ciple Of free government; 4th. That 1t
violates article l1S Of the Constitution Of
1868, which provides that taxation shall
be equal and uniform throughout the
State"
The first Of these has been 80 ably
discussed by Judge Cooley, In the case
OF the People vs.. Hurlbut, as to leave
little TO be added except those consid-
pertaining n the general
subject In opposition to the view there
taken, we are referred to four cases from
the Supreme Court of New York, which,
however, we cannot regard as decisive
OF the question, for the reasons: 1. That
none OF those very serious considera-
lions which are now urged, appear to
have been presented to that tribunal.
,. Those decisions are not authorita-
i've In Louisiana further than as they
commend themselves to our judgment
by the force OF their reasoning. In this
respect they bear no comparison to the
'ery searching inquiry OF Judge Cooley,
which leads to the opposite conclusion.
Two decisions Of the Supreme Court of
Louisiana are also referred to. With
egard to that from IS An, 3O3, we can
My say that, as no one is claiming
overeignty for the city OF New
orleans, we cannot see Its per-
inence or application. No doubt the :,
legislature can regulate the man /,
er Of holding elections, but, notwith- .
landing the decisions OF the present ],
curt, we do wholly. deny that 1t can :
bolish the elective franchise. II these :
entlemen will undertake to maintain !;
nat proposition, they will say some
hing more pertinent to the !
ause which they advocate; but they =
III find no support in the opinion OF
udge Spofford. AS to the case from
Annual we cannot deem worthy OF z
otice. in discussion like the present. :,
Re opinion Of a court, the judgments OF !,
hich are telegraphed to Washington >,
advance Of any issue being made he =