The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-01-13
THB NEW ORLEANS DEMooRAr, SUNDAY JANUARY 49, 1878

nent OF the plea raised by the city. that their
bonds have no. validity IN eonseaueree q the
act under which they were Issued. II that plea
Is good one their suit will bring great relief to
the city. + y should not be regarded by the
| It s certainly practicable for the parties having
sueh judgment to enter INTO an agreement to
reduce their claim as they have pledged their
clients to do. and az their interest NAV prompt
them to do. seeing thai, these bondholders. are
also taxpayers and would prefer TO be taxed for
the inter est on their bonds rather than for the
principal and interest which their contract re-
auires.
Your disbelief In the reality or sincerity of
their promise may be justified by experience.
but az its expression cannot affect the progress
or decision of the suit you will not, presume,
object to the efforts of those who have greater
confidence in the sincerity and interests Of
these parties to procure the reduction and mod
incation of judgment which would bear OBJ
pressivey upon them and their constituents.
taxpayers regard the contract q the, eonsoli-
dated bondhoIders az q valid anf binding one,
does not estogg them from an Intervention to
And now, having answered the ipterrogatories
nropounded by You. will not fair play ana JUS
quest of you the solution of a single connn-
of the nth?
Referring to the inequality of the taxation
under the act of 1859. by which different rates
of the tag to pay the consolidated debt were
fixed for the several municipalities, you say, u,
ms lnpuHhliIY contributed unlll tsbo, tHu IL
was not until the act of that year the tax was
m ade uniform. Again, investigation discloses
The fact that this tax was resisted by The then
and that Judge Merrick. of the Supreme Bench.
decided that the act of 1856 virtually repealed
The act Of 1852, which authorized the issue of
Will you be hind enough to inform, your
readers in what case Chief Justice Merrick ever
rendered any such decision as that referred to.
by which the act of 1852, which authorized he
issue of consolidated bonds. was declared to be
repealed by the act Of 1885,
fhe only cases which the most diligent inves-
tigaton has discovered in which the Supreme
Court of Louisiana, through Chief Jus, ice
Merrick. rendered any decisions on the subject
ys are ana hgss =, 9s y Of New eans
In these the eourt-dhief Justice Merriek deliv-
ering its opinion-decdedt that the act of 1866, the
new charter of the city, repealed the provisions
of the act of 1882 when the provisions Of the lat
ter act we're Inconsistent Herewith aud that so
far az the consolidated bonds were concerned.
under the act of 1852, was regarded by some as an
unequal tax, and so in the case of the City of
Lafayette, which was consolidated with the
m municipalities, tue taxpayer who was plaintiff
in tha suit, WAS adjudged to pay the same tax as
that imposed on the property holders in the
other municipalities.
The Chief Justice concludes his decision In
these words ~ An, s17l: But 1t is seid that tax
alton must be equal and uniform. The ,atueo
s hrdagho" the limits Of the ety and ine
stead of being opposed to the cons tuition is a
literal mpliance with the command in this
particular. The evil complained of Ia not a
want of equality in the taxes but the reverse. IT
is that the city is burdened with the debts of the
which the plaintiffs, az citizens
Of the Fourth District. think they ought not to
be compelled to pay equally with the inhabi-
ANTS of those municipalities who contracted
hem.
The Judgment was accordingly affirmed
against the taxpayer, who lived in Lafayette on
he very act of 1855. which you say repealed the
bond act, but which. in fact. &C
ttfr v,,EY tNil
ract with the bondholders stronger one. and
subjected to it all the taxpayers wi hin the |
limits of the city. In wbdt case the Chief Jus
ice ever rendered any decision in conflict with |
his is the eonundrum now propounded TO you |
md others who have been captured by the de- |
usion that the act Of 1852 has been repealed. so
ds ~ t by h a o ,s5 'e con
perusal Of the very precise and distinct |
provision In the act OF 1856. relative TO these
ponds. will satisfy you that your search for |
uch decision will be a vain one, and that you |
lave been made the victim of gross miss' ate |
nent of fact and law, which, as a faithful |
hronicler, you will has en- to correct.