The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-10-11
LIZ CIGAR SHED QUESTION.

w lave read the opinion of the City
no >rney on the Sugar Shed question,
q I'd regret that there Is no rem
edy under the law by which an OBJ
viously illegal grant made by former
City Council can be annulled and an
oppressive tax abolished. The City At
torney reduces the power OF the city ad-
ministration to an acquiescence in and
an obligation to execute even illegal
contracts made by It's predecessors,
how corrupt soever in their origin and
oppressive In their effect upon the citi-
zens. 1t cannot correct the acts OF the
preceding administration, when by such
acts. contract rights have been even
illegally created in favor OF other
parties. This arises from the gradual
ex pansion Of that much abused doctrine
Of vested or contract rights, under
which so much bad legislation and
corrupt administration has been per-
petrated and rendered irrepealable.
We do not care to engage in a discus
sion OF the soundness Of this doc
trine, but we are not satisfied that
q municipal government is without
the power of abolishing or annulling
illegal contracts and grants violative
and oppressive Of the rights Of the peo-
pie. We regret that the City Attorney,
did not furnish the Administrators with
the authorities which have been cited
In this paper more than once, showing
that the city government Is without the
power to impose tax upon produce
landed on the levee. Ii he could have
given US his opinion In accord with the
decisions Of the Supreme Court to that
effect, 1t would not have affected the
legal soundness Of the doctrine relating
to the binding force upon the city OF
even an illegal grant, while itwould have
served to illustrate, like many similar
cases, the unrepublican tendency and
nature Of this much abused principle
and dogma Of the sacredness Of con-
tracts and the restriction upon legisla-
tive and administrative power to correct
and annul vicious and illegal grants. It
would, too, have suggested that other
remedy and means Of relief, which Mr..
J onas admits exists in such cases, to
wit: that all persons dealing with the
company can contest the payment Of
illegal charges and recover back money
illegally paid by them.
Assuming, then, that Mr.. Jonas Is in
accord with our Supreme Court, that
the tax collected by the Sugar Shed
Company Is an illegal one. and that the
present City Administrators have no
right or standing In court to procure
the annulment Of the grant to collect |
this tax, made some years ago by their
unless In the form of q |
suit for forfeiture based on "a palpable |
and willful violation thereof" we have |
MS concession that the parties paying
his tax have the undoubted right to |
provoke the judicial decision Of Its iile-
ya!lty, as against both the city govern
nent and the Sugar Shed Company.
It Is for these parties, therefore, to
make this issue, as was done in the
leading case Of Wonsley vs. Second
when the tax payer sued
20 recover an exactly similar tax, which
had been paid under municipal ordi-
nance. Thus will the question of the
egality Of this tax be brought to ju-
licial decision without exposing the
,ity to the imputation Of seeking to i'm
pair its own contracts or infringe the
rested rights Of others. Let the sugar
11~ rrfn AI1 n /
With the strong vigor with which John
dampden resisted the ship money tax,
n with which our merchants, in 1s43,
opposed the wharfage tax of that year,
md there will be no plea Of vested or
contract rights which will avail to sup
'ort and defend an illegal and oppres-
i've grant.