The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-03-19
r.y xUw ORLEANS PACIFIC.
merts Against the Tax ana the Road
|,.,n,ed to be Unnecessary 10 New
Ar.pnns

nlior ~ late communications TO the
~ m the subject Of the bill lately
plssctsd TO impose q tax upon the prop
enc II The city OF New Orleans to aid In
ay construction Of the New Orleans
the1 pacific Railroad, ] established that
s sna act is Illegal, as in conflict with the
nnamium bond oct; unconstitutional, as
Enforcing o tax on the parish olOrleans
eni oa NV the action Of the Legislature
Mi fd n comforting upon the people the
s p,ser Of levylng taxes without the in
rvention OF Il representative and legis-
e,ivs body, thut it is unjust and sub
@pa,siye 81 the vital principles of govern.
'oent in making property subject TO the
,nnulnr vote for other than the neces-
pps,v and legitimate purposes Of govern
s sa that IL violates Inherent rights
nnt lepitimately subject TO legislation .
I'M, Sy il will DO In the highest degree op-
nressjve, rs increasing the burdens Of
an already overburdened people; that
\ Violates thQ~fslth pledged to the pub
IL creditor. dnd in consequence OF the
4 dpleted condition Of property, the tax
ssnnot be collected. but the attempt
gill produce an immense amount oI
sarering. -
Tho greater part Of tho public, be-
l,sye. admit that every one. OF the above
n,ornsjtjons il true, but those who do
"nd the law. do so either directly or by
'Omnlicatjon, on the grounds that the
nnn,nletiop of this road Ia absolutely es-
.ontal 10 the restoration OF our lost
u,osnerity. As / am aware that q united
rla,hlic sentiment frequently overrides
sw shall address myself TO tho task
Il showing that 1t is In the highest do
u,oe improbable that this road. for the
ssampletion Of which this illegal odious
t, t,us~x1 ,asn x,t ss,
",aase the public wealth, nor contribute
G q s%v degree to restore our prosperity:
"a~ further, that tho probabilities are
,b u II built by capital raised from taxes
S,acted from this city. that IL will still
,nrther jmpoyerish the people.
Tho op,s lies upon the advocates for
,ba imposition Of this tax TO prove. by
anne form Of reasoning, that this road
iii conduce TO tho public prosperity.
The bulletin and 1'icavunc assume,
aitbo,lt argument and withon. the sem
hlancs Of reasoning, that this road will
r. ~ immense benefit to tho people.
and especially TO the property holders.
They beg the question: and upon as
snmed premises erect D superstruCture
that must fall, II proved to DO founded
IN error. without attempting TO dis
nroye nv assumptions. the latter accuses
mo Of a fondness for paradox, because
aiffsr with a number OF my fellow-citi-
,sns In doubling that this road will be
=, anv advantage 10 the city OF New
nrlsans. and In demanding some owl.
dance TO show that IL will be beneficial
10 the people In the aggregate.
A my opponents have given no rea-
,ons In advocacy OF their views, but
seemingly rest them upon the una
ninjty Of public sentiment, / must. In
discussing the question, suppose rea-
sops before can combat them.
indpe by tho dogmatism OF the advo-
oatss OF the road, is that employed gen.
srally. "Ali railroads make cities pros
pero,s." Therefore. this road will make
New Orleans prosperous. III the pre-
mlses are admitted, tho conclusion log.
ically follows. But, In reply TO this
covert argument, ! made u statement
In n former communication. to which
the Picny,,,,e, without giving a reason.
takes exception. It was this know
Of no process OF reasoning by which the
utility of laying u tax on property To
build railroads can be justified: nothing
IN the nature OF things, or from our
past experience. that can warrant the
imposition Of this tax on the people of
New Orleans, when Ii Ia well known |
almost co-incdent with tho imposition |
OF taxes to aid I'm tho construction Of the |
Jackson and Opclousas railroads. Tnese
roads. It was predicted, would stimulate
the trade OF New Orleans into unwonted
prosperity but IL Is needless TO say that
no such result followed. SO with other |
roads, no increase Of prosperity TO this |
impoverished people has followed their
construction" I challenge any one 10
DENY the accuracy OF those facts.
did not state them for tho purpose Of
proving, as the PicnYuHc 1nters. tnat
railroads would, Of themselves. cause
the decline of our prosperity. bnt
they were intended TO prove, ana 90
Prove. conclusively, that railroads may
be constructed running into city with.
out rendering II moro prosperous. ana
that, think, Ii IN Important polnt
gained. as the advocates OF this road
sssert positively, and without qualifca-
tion. that this road will make MS pros
pero,ls. which would be nonsense unless
based on the syllogism that all railroads
make cities prosperous. have not as
serted. nor do j wish IL to be inferred
rom my statement. that because our
Decline IN prosperity was nearly coinc1-
dent with the construction OIL railroaos,
that IL was due TO this cause. rs all
1ueHttOllS III Iekhiu w 'hS W.
Nc prosperity or decay must be deter
mined by deductive, rather than induc-
tive reasoning. Because one event fol-
lows another IL cannot be assumed from
that fact alone that one Is tho cause and
the other the effect hence. In these
questions. the argument drawn from
coincidence ia point OF time Is OF Itself
Of little weight In proving an affirmative.
but It IL absolutely conclusive IN prov
Ing negative, viz: that all railroads 90
not make cities prosperous.
But ifmy language had been atten,
tyely noted by the Picdyune 1t would
have been seen that dated the decline
Of our prosperity from the imposition %
he tar to build the road. intended IN
this to suggest inquiry at least, IN re-
gard TO the influence OF a tax levied Tor
the purpose OF building railroads.
But perhaps those who advocate tnis
road as n financial restorative. didn't
put their arguments quite as strong, put
more readily, thus: "Railroads some,
times make cities prosperous. This VIII
be an acknowledgment that these roads
sometimes do not contribute TO make
acommunity prosperous. In THIS case
Il is incumbent on the advocates OF the
road to show how this road Will diner
rom others which have In no degree
contributed to render us prosperous.
The burden Of proof certainly lies on
them to do this, and to refrain from
broad ,nsunportad and eXtravaGant