The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-03-27

|
ttons involving the Interpretation OF the con
learning and ability Of the court, but because
the decision was rendered within two " ars
after that constitution was adopted. by ,iurists
who were necessarily familiar with It's history
this. In the dissenting opinion Of Judge Sit
dell In the Benton street case a. 454, he says
OF that court:
ject Of constitutional Interpretation, that three
of the judges who occupied seats In the court
which has recently gone out OF existence were
| members OF the convention OF 1876. among
them the late Chief Justice, who was promi-
nent memter OF the judiciary Committee in
hs5 % ZENITH ds na whose nns Eeeen
The case in which the dissenting opinion
thus quoted was rendered arose out Of an at
modern Jurisprudence is known as local as
sessment:" In other words, it was a charge or
contribution levied upon the contiguous pro.
Rerties by Municipality No. for the opening Of
II was held by the court. Mr.. Justice Ogden
sessnent il ' QUESTION a was was az tax within the
mf THa Of the e9nstitutiona Prqhibtlons
OF taxation are limited under our constitution.
and the rule with US is deduced. not from gene
that there does not exist either in the Leeisla.
ture or in any sub divisions Of State sovereign
" q power OF apportioning taxation for pub
ciRe of equality and uniformity, !.
w. From this decision Chief Justice slidel and
the court. consisting Of Justices ogden. Bu-
e ma!la !, and VOORHEES, |See Municipality vs.
A. somewhat similar case, also decided By
Judge Ogden. is to be found in the same volume
Cummings vs. Police Jury, A, 5os.),, This
was an Injunction suit to prevent the collection
OF special tax levied by the Police Jury Of Ra.
| pides for leyee purposes. The court held that
/ nf n rfi IF hn Inn
Of 1852 then in force). which Is Identical with
article 1877 Of the constitution Ct 1916.
plaintiff enjoined the collection Of special tax
| imposed by the Legislature for levee purposes
upon alluvial lands In the parishes Of Carroll,
| fore. that this case differed from the one last
quoted only in this: that the tax in the one case
was va. imaposed by the Police jury and in the
The court. however. tMr. Justice spofford
rendering the decisionl said. in referring to the
This article refers to State taxation in its
proper seRse.. for general or state purposes.
When it says that taxation shall be equal and
to Its object. which is to regulate the mode OF
filling the State treasury.
An assessment for levee purposes is not q tax
In the strict legal sense OF the term. although it
is true the Legislature has called it SO In the
act whose constitutfonality is attacked.
penans 3" ans OF eagy Th e qa Ras
would dictate that the assessment should be
made upon the land of each proprietor as
nearly as practicable in proportion to the bene-
ITO secure an exact equality. In this as in
everything else dependent upon human gov
ton Is the dream OF visionary minds"
" The tax was accordingly sustained. Judge
L have been led to reconsider The The Opinion
to which assented in the Benton street case.
and In the case Of Cummings vs. the police jury
reconsideration being that he did not consider
the provision of the constitution applicable to
municipal or local taxation for local improve
ments.
The same views were held by the court In the
cases ca. OF Surgi 10y vs. snitchma9 and sprgi vs..
vs. New W Orleans. IL e. s4s '' case ol 'A"'S0n
In the case of Mrs. Layton ,vs. New Orleans. 10
city Of Lafayette. complained OF the act Of March
r. 1856, by which it was made unlawful for the
City Council to levy any tax whatever. whether
limits Of the city. The grauamen Of the plain
ss the ps city of 7 s 9 w 6 To be act faxed ID
that qaoad the city Of Lafayette, the Leeis.
proper. What might have been the conclusion,
had the direction been made by the city OF New
In the case OF Wallace vs.. Shelton IA A.
SOB. being an Injunction against q tax for levee
purposes the court said, in referring to the
case Just cited:
I'm the case of Layton vs. city OF New Orleans,
II A. 515. we said that nothing prevented the
Legislature from adopting different principles
s sn a IT. eons sn uD
city the Legislature adopted the principle that
each municipality had the right to pay its own
the principle that it was equal and just that the
city at large should pay the very unequal debts
Of the different municipalities. II ,oas not in
trns unconstitutional"
From this somewhat lengthy resume Of the
under consideration. embracing period Of
some twelve years-from 1s47. when the do
cision was rendered in the case of Duncan by
sat in the convention by which the constitution
interpreted by them was adopted, down to 1852
when the decision Just cited was rendered-it
cases decided by Judge Ogden reported in
A. which h were soon after overruled. it was
That taxation, to be equal and uniform. need
not be universal.
That the Legislature was not prevented by
the objects OF taxation into classes ton this
point decision is reported In 10 A., .. 2as,
case Of Yeatman vs.. Crahdell:
l845) refers to State taxation In it's proper sense,
for general or State purposes. When it says
b6 anaoa The seat a b n sas d na n 6
object which is to regulate the mode Of filling
the State treasury"
1t has been argued that the opinion expressed
BY Chief Justice Eustis in Duncan's case. to
the effect that article 127 of the constitution OF
1845 did not apply to municipal taxation, is to be
regarded as an obier, dictum. inasmucn as by
its terms that article has not to 20 into effect
until after the year 1s4s and could, therefore,
have had no bearing on the case decided AS
Stunning this view of the subject to b. correct,
the same objection cannot be urged to the de-
cisions in the cases Of Burlington vs.. Dink-
grave, q An. 548 decided In 1919: Gillespie vs..
Ion vs.. Lewis decided in 1858 Is An. 472): State
vs. Poydras, decid- In 1854 70 An, 1851 or to
Hn Il It be stated in
last mentioned, that the object of article III of
the constitution OF 1915 was =" to regulate the
can have no application to the question now
before this court. The tax imposed under the
act Of 1852 was as surely a tax imposed for a
Ing laYaa or LAYING hannuetta II was a tag