The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-12-31

form In that IL was imposed alike on all per-
SONS pursuing the same occupation, IL was not
In conflict but In strict accordance with article
that article 1877 Of the constitution OF 1s45, and
article 1913 OF the constitution OF 1862 were
not applicable to municipal taxation.
The decision In Duncan's case was rendered
on the fifteenth OF February, 1847. The Leg
islature was then In session, and 1t fastened
to place the taxpayers OF New Orleans under
the Bgis Of this constitutional provision. By
act approved May 4, 1S47, No 1872, page 140, 1t
was declared that taxation within each NUM-
clpality shall be equal and uniform. After
levied In each municipality shall be taxed in
proportion to Its value; no one species OF
property shall be taxed higher than an
other species OF property OF equal value
on which taxes shall be levied. We cannot
regard the words throughout the State" as
used In the first ali,aea OF article 127 as limiting
the operation Of the great principle which II
declares. On the contrary, they convey to
our minds the idea that In no part OF the
State Of Louisiana can taxes not equal and
uniform be lawfully levied, whether by the
eminent on, which the Legislature has chosen
to confer taxing power. Tho principle OF
equality and uniformity In taxation Is inhe-
rent In and underies every system Of govern
tlonal force by the formulated expression Of
1t In the organic law, which, In that respect
is simply deciaratory.
The subsequent phraseology OF article 1877
seems to VS. to place the meaning beyond
n may be levied II q tals State: Taxes may A be
levied on property IN this State for State pur--
poses, for parochial purposes, for municipal
purposes, and there IL not one word In the
article In question which limits Its meaning
or indicates the intention of the convention,
while guarding the rights OF the citizens
against unequal and oppressive taxation
by the State. to leave them ut the
mercy OF police juries In the several
ccoancis In the numerous ys towns and cities OF Of
the State. Certainly, 1t would not be possible
to establish an equal and uniform tax for
every parish and town and city, because their
exigencies and requirements and resources
what the law OF equality. and uniformity re-
quires, is that the tax, II levied by the State,
must be at the same rate throughout the
State, and upon the valuation OF the property
taxed. IL levied for parochial purposes,
all the property taxed In the parish
must be ut the same rate on valuation-if the
tax be for municipal purposes 1t must be at
the same rate on valuation throughout the
limits OF the corporation. Any tax levied In
any part OF the State by any taxing power
which does not conform to this rule OF equal
ity and uniformity SO precisely formulated In
act No. 1877 is unconstitutional, ultra vires and
void. We cannot assent to the doctrine In
Duncan's case for another reason, and that is,
that confessedly after the year 1S48 the Legis-
lature had no power under the constitution
OF 1s45 to tax one species OF property higher
than another species Of property taxed of
equal value, and the Legislature could not
confer upon q municipal corporation, the mere
creature OF Its will, any power which it could
not exercise by direct legislation.
The profound respect which we entertain
for the late Chief Justice Eustis and the other
eminent jurists who composed the court over
which he presided has imposed upon US the
necessity OF stating at greater length than
we should otherwise have done our reasons
that article 1877 Of the constitution did control
taxation, and that all tax
ing power throughout the State, In any
and every part of the State, must be ex-
ernepe In Of strict aana% and un IL hs
first formulated in that article and preserved
In all the subsequent constitu-
tons. See Gilmer vs. Sheboygan, Q Black $40;
Talcott vs. Pine Grove, 10 Wallace 575 and
cases there cited from State courts II 1t be
conceded, and we do not care to discuss that
now, that under the constitution
of 1845, after the year 184S, the Legislature or
a municipal corporation could select one spe-
cies OF property and impose tax upon that
species OF property alone, excluding any other
species OF property made taxable by law 1t
would not thence follow that the tax could be SO
levied on that species OF property, whether by
the State or by a municipal corporation, that
the rate on valuation could be higher In one
part Of the State IL taxed by the State, or in
one part Of the city II taxed by municipal
corporation, than in any and every other part
OF the State or corporation.
Our attention has not been called to any
decision or dictum sanctioning any such
manifest injustice. But this is precisely
what the Legislature did, by section 81 OF the
act of 1852.
The boundary between the Second and
Third Districts Is Espanade street. The
owners of real estate and slaves on the up
town side OF Esplanade paid percentages for
the four years ending in 1856 aggregating
8.091S, while his neighbor on the OPP
posite side of that street paid In the
same period 10.n1s. Canal street sep
arates the First and Second Districts;
the proprietor on the upper side of Canal
sse owep pad sos FeRv sree
is the dividing line between the First and
Fourth Districts, and while the property OF
the lower side of that street paid 8,5Sh, that
on the upper side paid 1861. Such injustice
was too giaring to escape the notice OF the
Legislature, and the acts Of 1856 put IN end to
it by subiecting all taxable property in the
city of New Orleans to the same rate per
cent upon the same basis and valuation
Counsel for relator insists that section 81 OF
the act of 1852 is a contract binding on the
i0UdUt, tIlo Clty duu GU0
PROFESSIONALLY there was contract, and
very simple one, between the city and the
The city assumed the debts for which the
several municipalities and Lafayette had
been liable. and 1t executed its bonds bearing
interest payable semi-annually for the
amount. The city also undertook to raise
the sum Of $3.50, 900 per annum to pay the ac-
cruing interest and to provide for the gradual
extinction of the bonds. The bonds were the
evidence Of the contract The contract was
to pay the amounts stipulated, principal and
interest.
That was the obligation of the contract. and
that obligation is placed under the protectien
Of the constitution of the United States, as
well as Of that Of the State of Louisiana.
But was it a part of this contract that the city
should issue no other bonds or evidences of
debt during the forty years of the running OF
these bonds? We think not. So long as the
city paid the interest punctually, it was no
concern OF these bondholders what amount of
debt might be contracted toward other per-
sons. Legislative power and the sovereignty
Of the State may be assimilated to paternal
power, which cannot be surrendered at will.
The powers conferred on municipal corpo-
rations are subject and must ever remain sub
Iect to legislative control, and the Legislature
IF tn-dau cannot ct1-o ha