New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-09-19

PRIVATE NARKETS---AN ELECTION 1seU
i The legal consequences of taking huma
life and Of selling food for its subsistence
seem pretty much the same. They are i'm
prisonment and discharge. In one respect
the homicide has an advantage, he may b.
bailed out. The vender OF food, standing
in contempt of court, has no sSscn pll''
lege, and must endure separation '1on
home and business until the outraged
dignity of district Judge shall have been
appeased.
It is natural that Republicans, as the
friends of free labor, and food free from
taxation, should inquire why this especial
trade of selling food should be visited
with such exceptional penalties. We may
presume that there can be no censure
directed against the judges for admins
I tering the law as they understand it. It is
barely possible that the equipoise of JUS
tice may be somewhat shaken by want of
respect for the orders of the court, nor are
we to be understood to sanction any direct
or indirect violation Of law by any parties
| or for any purpose. The market men and
their customers, the people, are concerned
| to look beyond the process of law to the
| law itself. It is as much their duty to de-
mand an adjudication on their rights by
the highest tribunals, as it was that Of the
butchers, or of the butchers meat mon
opoly. The REPUBLICAN,, as the friend of
free labor and free food, has heretofore
proved that the corporate tax imposed on
food is in part illegal, and wholly unwise.
The REPUBLICAN has commended against
the opinion of the Mayor and the argu-
ments Of corporation counsel that cor
porftion is not sovereign. The city of
New Orleans has been subdivided at one
time into faubourgs and municipalities,
each of which made its own debt and ad-
ministered its own local affairs. It has
been consolidated in single corporation.
It has been governed by an elective
council Of many representatives and by
an administration appointed at one time
by the executive and again elected by the
peope. 1t owes debt contracted under
legislative authority, and it can perform
no authentic act unless authorized by the
State government. 1t may surprise-per-
haps shock-the honorable Administra-
tors to tell them that their government
is as much the creature of the
State as the corporations of health or
police; yet it is true, and the city corpo-
ration may no more invade the legal
province of one Of those corporations
than one of those corporations can invade
the powers of the city government.
Whence, then, does the city of New
Orleans derive its power to place tax on
the food of its people? The Legislature
which created this corporation, with the
powers and immunities incident,
has given it a power to tax real
and personal property within its limits
and to collect the same by pro-
cess. 1t has also conceded the power to
impose an annual license tax on trades,
professions and callings. We search in
rain for power to hire out the exclusive
light to sell food to the people as now ex-
'rcised with such powers of penalty. I'VE
leny that the city has any right teese-
nand for the hire of the places of food
ale anything more than will be sufficient
build and maintain those places. The
market, like the wharf, is an easement
reated for the commerce of the people.
tie one be hired to land a cargo, or the
Their to provide stall, the occupant
the one or the other can be
harged no more than the rate we have
.ated. The courts have decided that
ny excess Of tax on the use of wharf
bove the rate stated is illegal. They
ill do the same with regard to the mar
cts when the case shall be made before
lem. Can any one doubt that the sale
an exclusive right to sell food is an
direct tax on the people. The market
onopolist, armed with the power of the
ty, closes out all competition. He then
res out the use of the only market at a a
riff SO fixed as to give the city revenue '
i'd leave the lessee profit. Do not the \
sople see that that this makes their food 7
st them more than if left to COMPETE
On of licensed purveyors or private b
arkets? If the city derived no revenue
ON this sale in monopoly-if the lessee j.
the market made no margin after z
ynent to the city, why should there t
opposition to the sale of cheap food tt
the private markets If we placed the
st of market property at two and half G.
lllions Of dollars, and the annual main "
lance of that property at ten per e.
Mt, the city could properly exact rent if
two hundred and fifty thousand dol CT
rs for the use Of this public property. Il
'ery cent beyond this actual cost is an a,
direct and unequal tax imposed upon rs
3 people of New Orleans. 1t is viola
n OF the constitutional provision that Of
axation shall be equal and uniform IL
the State" There is no war tt
ut OF law for the exaction of tax on "a
ID, whether that tax be direct or indi- re
ct. There is no reason that family in IL
w orleans should pay more for eating VI
3 beef Of Texas or the potatoes of St. th
mmany than if these articles of food D,
re consumed anywhere else in the &c
lto We hayo said - ,co, -~-: =