New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-03-24
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PROPOSED
RAILROAD TAX.

THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PROPOSED
RAILROAD TAX.
Two of the city Administrators, Messrs.
Burke and Pilsbury, have thought proper
to place themselves on record in reference
to the proposed tax to aid in the construc-
ton of the home Pacific railroad. Both
these officers voted for the ordinance levy
| ing the tax, though they are opposed to the
levy and announce their opposition to it.
As the law which requires the Council to
submit this question to the people is very
clear and peremptory in its provisions,
but little was left to the discretion OF
the Mayor and Administrators in the
premises. The duty to pass the ordl-
nance and conduct the election becomes
| simply ministerial, and can be enforced
by mandamus at the suit of any party
who feels an interest in having the
tax laid. The Mayor, however, and
one of the Administrators, we learn,
| take different view of their
duty, and hold that they may legally re-
fuse to order the election. They base their
opposition on the ground that the whole
people-non-property owners and all
will be permitted to vote upon and decide
a question which, in their opinion, should
be left to the aristocracy alone. A prom
inent city official is reported to have said
that he was unwilling to trust the ''rabble. :"
as he rather pointedly characterizes the
great army of renters and lodgers-those
who pay rents, but own no real estate
with question involving a special tax on
property. Mr.. Burke must have had this
undemocratic idea in his mind when he
declared in his speech:
On the other hand, am not disposed to
vote against the passage of this ordinance
for the reason that it places the matter in
the hands of the people. We do not lecy the
ents who voted Us into office, to say It they
will impose the tax or not; to say to them
that they have sufficient intelligence to
elect Administrators to Office, but that they
are not competent to decide upon this ques-
ten, is q position am unwilling to assume.
Mr.. Pilsbury replies to it in similar
strain:
It would be inconsistent to say that VA
would not allow those who had elected US
to office to say whether or not this tax
should be imposed. think it is unconsti-
tutional, but do not know that the Presi-
dent of this Council, or any other member,
have ever been appointed judge and Jury,
too. l think 1t should be left to those who
are more nearly concerned.
There can be no doubt of the correct
ness ofthe positions herein taken by these
Administrators. As officers they are
bound to obey the law strictly, by pro-
viding by ordinance for submitting the
question to the people. But when they
come to cast their votes in their individual
capacity, they will be perfectly free to
vote for or against the proposed tax.
It looks to us like inconsistency in
city offic er who owes his own position to
popular vote to say that his constituents
or any part of them, are not fit to instruct
him in his duties, or take part in the
decision of questions affecting the public
intere SITS. To say that the voter is sover-
eign only to the extent of determining the
fitness of candidates to Office, while deny
ing them a voice in the settlement of
financial questions, is to place property
and the owners of property above even
running humanity, and separate the
whole community into two classes-the
aristocrats, who own property and perhaps
pay no taxes which are not wrung from
their tenants, and who sometimes with
hold money thus obtained, and the
tenants, who are compelled to pay their
rents under pain Of immediate restraint
and election.