New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1877-05-05
House Bin No. 500.

mayor FllsDury anu tu0 AuluiHlsIaNOhS
have addressed long communication to
Mr. Nichols relative to the bill making
certificates of Indebtedness receivable for
taxes, and argue;
First-That it offers a reward for de-
linquency, and affords strong induce
ment not to pay taxes. They cite the in
stance of Tom Jones, who has refused to
pay his tax of $1,000, due in 1873, which
would amount to $1,000; now that the
penalties are remitted pays it in scrip for
$3.50. Thus, Jones makes $3.50, plus
the interest for four years, whieha the
Mayor moderately estimates at ten per cent,
though such sharp fellow as Jones would
be likely to make twenty, and the city,
losing the said interest, is out $3.50 clear
cash, besides losing the tax of $4,000.
To carry the Mayors reasoning little
further, Jones by paying S1750 has made
'S7250, and besides has the credit Of pay
ing $4,000 tax in support of the Mich
oils government, and his books ought to
show balance to the credit of profit and
loss of S12, 500. Who wouldn't be
property holder under such a bill? But
the fathers of the bill would probably re-
tort that if Jones could figure himself
out a rich man, in this way that was his
affair, but the city had got s1750 he had
never meant to pay, and which it never
would have collected if it hadn't been for
the bill.
Second-This mode of payment in
creases the debt of the city. Mr.. John
Brown is brought in here as q creditor of
the city for $4,000, with half as much in
terest as Jones got, and his claim figured
at $4,000. This claim Jones is to buy
(omitting to soy how much Brown is
gouged by the sharp Jones in the transac-
tion) and by paying his tax with it leaves
the city in debt to him $1,000, and no
taxes to hear from. This, it is presumed,
though the Mayor says nothing about it,
presupposes that Jones didn't pay his lit
tie S1750, but found it more printable to
buy up Brown, and, in the language of
the letter, ''rewsrding disobedience of
the law granted at the expense
of the patriotic and worthy citizen. Per-
haps the patriotic and worthy citizen
might be found to suggest that if Brown
could be bought so cheap the city might
make the purchase itself, and thereby
steal march on Jones.
Third-The bill is in open violation Of
the law requiring the tax to be measured
by the liabilities and the pledge that taxes
of each year shall be used exclusively for
the liabilities of that year. The Mayor
says the specious reasons for the bill arc
readily answered in this respect, but as he
finds it unnecessary to quote them it is
probably useless to repeat his arguments
against it.
Fourth-The financial schemes of the
city should be modelled with relation to
the laws, for to disturb them is to confuse
the administration of city affairs. Yet,
the Mayor says, if it at any time be pru-
dent to make any change, such change
should be made or approved by the City
Council. This approval the Legislature
evidently failed to obtain.
The Mayor thus concludes:
More might be said. Thus it could be
shown that the idea that the floating debt
might be taken up by a succession of laws
similar to that proposed is erroneous, but
it will suffice to consider the foregoing,
and, finally, to remember that, as money
is the vital spark Of government, no law
which tends to promote tax delinquency
can be other than an injury to the people
and clog TO the administration of the
city.
If TomsJoues is q member of the Prop
erty Holders Union he may be expected
to rise to personal explanation, aAd take
issue with the city fathers on the ground
that the bill is Just what he wanted and
what he has been waiting for these many
years. That body has already passed a
resolution to exert its influence TO have
the bill signed.