, 1876-07-02

! am under the impression that there is pro-
vision still in the statute which says that, where
the tax on any property shall fail to be collect
ed it shall not he utterly and irretrievably lost
And beyond this opinion neither Of the gen
tlemen had anything to say Oh the subject.
EDWARD ROBY.
HIS OPINION OF TIE RESULT
4 reporter Of The TRIBUNE, during the day,
cane across Mr.. Edward Roby, the lawyer who
has been fighting Bill 300 ever since it went into
force, and had the following conversation with
him concerning the results Of the decision:
Said the reporter: Can these appealed taxes
of 1872, 1873, and 1874 be collected"
'vThey cannot"
.eWhy?"
sBecausc the taxes Of 1872 were levied with
out auy law. The law under which the city un-
dcrtook to levy them was repealed July l, 1872.
The assessment was made after that time; the
action Of the Common Council in leyying the
taxes was after that time; the warrant was is
sued Dec. 5, 1872; the application to the court
for Judgment was made in September, 1873.
The precept was issued and the sale
made after that; but from July l, 1872,
the law had been entirely repealed. There
was no more authority to make the assessment,
or levy the tar, or sell the land than II it had
been done by the President Of the United
States. The taxes OF 1873 and 1874 were levied
,1nfler Bill 500, which the Supreme Court has
decided to be unconstitutional and void. Re-
ncatcd determinations have established that an
Unconstitutional and void law Is precisely as
if it had never been written. The paper repre-
sentcd is blank. There is no power to collect
u tax or any other charge for which there was
no law, and no obligation in any nlanner."
NO VALUATION POSSIBLE.
nCan the Legislature validate the tax levied
1,ndcr the city assessment of 1874f'
"No."
"Why not?'
uBccause the Legislature has no power to
levy tax on city. The Constitution, Sec. 10,
Art. Q, SAYS that the General Assembly shall
not impose taxes upon municipal corporations
OF the inhabitants or property thereof for cor
porate purposes"
"Can it authorize the city Itself to impose
this taxa"
Can the city be authorized to collect from
those who did not pay on the State valuation OF
1874 their proportional ahare Of the tax levied
for !. hat hat, ysar'"
"Can it assess the whole tax for 1874 On the
| State assessment OF that year2''
sit can proceed under q general law applfca-
| bic to the entire State. In SO proceeding, It
must in some form impose the entire amount
| within the Jurisdiction, aud the body imposing
the tax in proportion to the property within
| that jurisdiction"
ss1Fhe city, it appears, then, levied no tax for
the year 1874. Can it now take the State assess
1ncnt for that year aud proceed to levy its tax
upon it"'
~ssIt could not make it under any statute now
in force. If it requires the money 1t can levy 1t
| all next year. For instance, there is all unlaw
full debt Of 500 ooo represented by certificates
| - 1ah% nS60 har If q
city requires its money for its regular expenses
next year II present legislation will permit
the collection Of the tax Of 1874, unlawfuly lev
led but not paid, they can unite tue whole and
collect s14,om,Go next year; The law 3S
any purposes would be applicable to the
collection for deficit caused By this obstinate
| persistency In attempting to raise money under
! Special Laws, and to pay unlawful debts, If
wT amy RoTff to
| 'sThc case stands, then, as il the city had
actually omitted to make levy for certain
yeara'
VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS.
tslt staads.prcciscly as if the city h2d omitted
to make levy for the years ls72, 1873, and
| 1874, and certain citizens had voluntarily given
money to the support Of such Public ed lnstta. ttut
| t1xy have made voluntary contributions in
poses no obligation in law upon other persons to
.na',;osnaI ~ ~ nr,lau-ful art fnrrns no basis
@ ae,pn1's,1;ner othars tn s,1stain like Illegal
Ioa I3a,e',rns eve' ), ~~Ao > -
scsunnosino q man navs his nersonal nroperty
nH,pr tI,Tsst If 5;etIaint Is that voinptary
.so,.1.,o,t nor ~ - ~ -
tTtn f;f,;c,1tv IN that ease Is that the threat
~ a;str,;n+ "a Tia mere dnress that one private
a1, -, ara;sns ovar smother. II there was a
,arrort m Which the nronertv could have been
toEcn and transferred to another, so that the
| t:.1o -rou1d bnva hcan 1ost to the owner It
hau,. h"en scl d,,rrss that The individual
oh"r;ng mipht have been protected. and the
oficer so11cctino would certainly have been pro
! to.tn11 in his efT0rts: Init as there was no au-
Ie.;t, - - Ia,r for fhe isse of the warrant. and
M rower in the officer to enforce It, he would
i,o,!po ho po"i honn liahlr in an action OF
+T.snass for onything that be did.
r., 9rtc1 on;r 10 nrivats nerson. and was SUBJ
;ac+ ,Sohahlv n tht crirajnal laws of the State
5ees rpant;lcncs ~ oncrator or as person obtain
T., ~ ,nnnoy hv faIse nretences. In such cases
t;S rarso, a.Tonoy t5yefl either nays voluntarily
IL is nrotnctn5 f,ly agai1lst tie wrongdoer by
he n c criminaI and civil processes that apply to
Thn I1bn XIV Il itsel5 cannot be ! criminal
g nersnn thcn nayinr his eal-estate taxes
| hos NJ rcIress whattver.'7
Z # + hos hee,, decided in this State that where