The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-01-08

him to be heard. Under oct No. i
the collector levies, without process
condemns without hearing, and sell
without execution The act cannot b,
understood as extending constitution
ally 50 far rs to authorize purchaser
Mt the tax sales to demand for their per
som" sms sav 6ene avasy y Pssrs RE- centn % on n,
process OF law before any person con b,
subjected TO such penalty. This pel
centum certainly does not go for pub
lie purposes" for which alone tn,
Legislature has tho power to authorize
tho assessment OF tax. But there Il
still another inHuperablc objection tt
the. pretension to this per centum SO,
up by the defendant. The sale In this
case took place on the 9Th of October
1876. and the purchaser seems TO have
entirely ignored the act No. Z OF 1876
approved May s, which declares
That upon the payment Of tho princi.
pal or the amount OF the tax. itseJ, on
or before the first day of November
1875, all interest and penalties thereon
shall be remitted on oil taxes through.
out the State"
it appears that q day or two before
that time, the plaintiff rendered the
defendant, as the price Of the redemp-
tion OF this property purchased by
Billgery at $1O3 50, $f27 50, which
he declined to- D receive. II is
apparent from an inspection of
the act just quoted, that n tender
OF the purchase price was oil that Re
boul was Obliged TO make, down to the
3Oth of October, for the law gave him
until the 1st of November TO do so with
out imposing any interest or penalties
whatsoever. by tho fourth section Of
that act "all laws and parts of laws In.
consistent with It's provisions were re-
pealed unconditionally, and it was pro-
yided that itshould takeeffect from and
after Its passage. IL Is impossible to
understand why it Is pretended that
Billgery has n right TO o penalty,
which OF right can only belong to the
party offended, the State, which the
statute. II u still existed, remitted until
Nov. l.. 1876, and tho very existence
or which had been obliterated by the
repeal Of the law which had
this statute is Of tho most general and
sweeping character, for Il should be re-
marked the language Is not to suspend
MI ldcs Inconsistent with tho provisions
Of net No. Z, but II plainly, as language
can express 1t, vepcdis them without d
saving clause. Now, what is the rule of
law In such cases2 It Is that tho repeal
u u law creating an offense (dnd penal
tics always prosuppose ofTense) sweeps
away all prosecutions against il
without q saving clause for that
purpose. Suppose that an effort
had been made judicially to enforce
The penalty under act No. AZ Of 1879. be-
Jween tho 8th OF May and tho 1st OF
November last, what Judgment could
,ho court have rendered. under it2 None,
because the defence would have been
hat the act had been repealed. It had
,eascd to operate. There had been no
Legislature to revive it, and am ut u
oss to comprehend how tho penalty
hat existed under II can now be claim
,d. even by the State. Act No. Al WAS
penal statute, Hills Rep,
g; > Pick. H., 229 2 Mass, lag D Gill &
J., 47g; 9 Pick, tl2l, and US such receive
strict Interpretation. for the benefit of
I'll persons against whom the penalty
vas provided. lSee Blackwell's Tax
Jom.. chap. IL. SEQ. 73S, and cases above
In conclusion, IL may be permitted me
0 quote tho language OF Adam Smith
Every tax ought 10 be 40 conttved as
10Th TO take and to keep out Of the
pockets Of the people, as little as posi-
lie, over and above what IL brings into
he public Treasury OF the State" See
Wealth Of Nations, p. 2i8.
There is something radically wrong
n the government when, contrary 10 tho
purposes Of it's constitution aud tho
latliral rights Of its people. lawgivers
the causes OF expense. and i'm
,ose the most oppressive penalties on
he people to meet and defray them. |
'uch is the character OF the summary
proceeding the tax gatherer Is author
god TO resort to by recent legislation,
nd that, too, with some showing OF
ocal judicial sanctions, that one Is apt |
D forget the hitherto recognized princi
lie, that u mans property belongs to
i'm. and that he should not be deprived
{ IL TO enforce the payment Of penalties |
D individuals without due process Of
NV.
The plaintiff is entitled TO his judg-
lent as prayed for with costs.