The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-09-11
REMISSION OF TAX PENALTIES.
An Interesting Decision Relative to Act
No. III, 1877.

An Interesting Decision Relative 10 Act
No. III, Isz5.
Judge Rightor, acting on behalf Of Judge
Houston in the Fourth District Court in the case
Of tho State en- rel. Mrs. Cora A. Moores vs.. Allen
Jumel, State Auditor, rendered the following de-
cision which ia of great interest to all tax deln-
quents:
The only question presented to the court ia
whether the measure of relief extended TO delin-
quent tax debtors by act %, session of 1877, ap-
plies to those who have been appropriated under
the provisions Of act AZ. session OF 1878, in
the property has been adiudicated to the State.
The court thinks that it does.
The Legislature could not without violating
article ITO of the constitution, take away from
individual purchasers at tax sales the indemnity
accrung to them under the terms OF
the law in case the owner should
exercise within the legal delay the reserved right
of redemption. But the people, acting through
light to permit any penalties in its favor arising
from the denquencies of taxpayers. It is con-
tended on behalf Of the state that while act No.
% RENTS the penalties incurred, act No. So,
which makes special provision for the redemp-
ton of lands sold, or forfeited to tho state, con-
trolls and to that extent repeats, the prior legis-
ton. 1t is rule Of Interpretation that laws
on the same subject-matter are to be
construed so as to harmonize rather than
to conflict, especially should that rule
adop ed at the same session OF the Legislature
Courts must endeavor to give force to every pre-
scription OF law ut andgts Oaedt guam pefedt and
only in the impossblty ofreconcing apparently
inconsistent provisions should We recognize an
absolute anthony. But no such difficulty nor any
such alternative Is presented to us here.
Realtors land was advertised for sale under act
No. AZ, and in default of bidders was adjudicated
on the 9th of January, 1876, to the State, for q
sum consisting of the unpaid taxes and costs, to-
gether with the penalties affixed by the law then
prevailing to delinquencies. She proposes to re:
deem her property, and claiming the benefit OF
act No. % of 1877, tenders to the State the full
amount of taxes unpaid on the date of forfeiture,
together with all costs incurred in etfecting the
same, and exhibits receipts for all taxes due to
date.
The State refuses to grant her a certificate of
redemption, claiming that as an antecedent con-
96, session of 1877, (known as the Revenue billy,
pay the amount of the purchase money with
per cent per month on the same. Now, in this
| case the purchase money" as it is called, con-
sists in very great par:of penalties for the non
payment of the very taxes for the forced collec-
ton of which the forms Of sale were
pursued. Ii this Interpretation be sound
one, the Legislature OF 1877, inetead of
relieving the unfortunate tax defauiter from the
penalties inflicted by prior legislation has aggra-
waited Those penalties and saddled the overbur-
dened delinquent with an additional charge OF
per cent interest per month on the exorbtant
penalties already levied upon him. Such legisla-
ton might also well be criticized as retroactive,
as affixipg in 1877 duplicate penalty for a
| derelicsion occurring in 1876. Such an inter-
probation shocks not only all notions of
law and of elementary justice, but suggests
bitter satire on that portion Of the title OF the
| bill which designates it as one 'giving relief to
| taxpayers" We are compelled, therefore, to re-
iect an Interpretation against which law and con-
science revolt, and which does violence to the
dominent ideas of the General Assembly of 1877,
as indicated in act No. %.
The only other Interpretation possible is that
which gives force to the title of the bill and re-
lieves the delinquent from all penalties whatever,
an Interpretation consistent with the magnanimi-
ty of the sovereign.
Let the mandamus be made persmptory, and
let the Auditor of State issue to relasor certif-
cate of redemption, on her paying all the taxes
due on the property sought to be redeemed for
the years 1869 to 1874, both inclusive, together
with the costs incurred for the sale or forfeiture
of the property in question, the whole amount.
log, more or less, to the sum OF two hundred and
twelve dollars and twelve cents.
G. L. Hall, attorney for relator; j. G. Egan,
Attorney General for the State.