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

not apply. the courts could interfere only upon
Rr'neaRafe lGf Rsao0sS q
certainly presents no such cause for Interior
shhes 1t vas 50 held in the case OF Wallace vs..
The court therefore concludes that the objec-
.aon urged TO the constitutionaity Of the act Of
| IoeS cbnnot anect the questions involved In this
It remains then to be determined what are the
1t Is claimed that the thirty seventh section of
TIE act 81 lsS2 constitutes contract between the
issued under and by virtue Of that section,
which the Legislature had no power to impair.
| and that the subseausnt legislation upon the
Same subject matter is imperative for that pur-
pose. d..
The court has been referred to vast num-
| Der OF authorities upon this subject and has
carefully considered those within its reach, in
Gliding aa al to which especial Importance has
There can be no question either as to the
weight OF authority or reason AS was said By
the Supreme Court of the United States In the
Wall. s64; TT Is we'll settled that a Slate may
disable itself by contract from exercising is
clear that where a State has AUTHORIZED I mu.
nieipal corporation to contract and to exercise
the power Of local taxation to the extent neces-
| given cannot be Withdrawn until the contract ID
saisaed The State and corporation IN such
| comes trust which the donor cannot annul,
| and which the donee is bound to execute: and
| neither the State nor the corporation can any
1
| this way than any other"
1t will be observed that this decision was rem
organ Of the court; by whom also the case Of
Gilman vs.. the city OF SheboyRan "a Black
It is difficult to perceive how the decision last
referred to affects the question now before this
The city of sheboygan had issued bonds
under law authorizing the imposition Of a
tax tax on real and personal property alike for
nf ~ uv1R
pnrpo9se to real estate alone. Gilman. the
nhsn an n Of real estate enoned
State ate and Gilman. The court expressly said,
holders II does not belong to the ompiainant.
VIC. to enforce their contract and pro-
an existing contract between the State and the
Hontdhoders which is al that is eontended for
stance was decided In the case OF Layton vs..
New Orleans. IL A. 5l5
has For s ar 4sad M s this pGnt the 9ons
Linn, D. 2s5: Burroughs on Taxation. 1917; Sed-
Wioh on Constitutional Law. D. els: Dillon on
Is Cal. 6ss; Wheat, 4ls. and others too numer-
Gus to mention.
taxation provided BY the act Of 1859 another sys.
tenn was substituted by subsequent acts, and
that the act of 1852 is therefore repealed OBJ
1t 10 true that from 1856 the tax imposed by
the city for the payment Of the consolidated debt
was assessed sa upon diffrent basis from that
the collection of the taxes provided for by the
laws passed since 1852 Is prohibited by act No.
provisions of the act Of 1852 because It has been
superseded or repealed by those Of 1855. pro-
h BE-
forced because they prove no fact OF the rela-
tors contract The answer to this proposition
the consolidated bonds WAS paid according to
their contract it made no difference to them In
was derived, but; when the payment was dis
continued. ,hough they may not be In q position
to object to the repeal OF laws which formed no
lection OF tax In manner not contemplated
By that contract. there is no good reason why
tract and the laws which form part Of It. ~,
- In the ease, OF Van Hoffman vs.. the City Of
Quincy nih already referred to- the Supreme Court
to that In existence when the bonds were
issued:
amount to be collected. In force wnen the bonds
Of this case. The act Of 1858 is SO far as Il af-
fects these bonds, nulfity. 1t fs the duty
OF the city to impose and collect the taxes in ali
respects. as If that act had not been passed. A
tract but an abstract right of no practical value
and render tue protection IF the constitution
shadow and delusion."
The same thing may be said OF the legislation
which 1t is claimed. affects The REALTORS bonds
and their rights under the act OF 1852. Thevery
argument that there has been an acuuiescenco
since 1866 In the method then provided for the
payment Of the consolidated debt is as strong
an admission that since 1856 The REALTORS have
been the holders of valid, subsisting obligations.
which, after the lapse of twenty-five years. it is
claimed are unconstitutional.
IL this view be correct, then the REALTORS are
q. entitled 70 the enforcemtnt OF the provisions Of
clear that the writ Of mandamus is the only
method by which such enforcement can be at
tanned. and has frequently been recognized as
the appropriate remedy In such cases.
Dillon on Municipal Corporations. D. ss5. says:
"Mandamus is one of the principal remedies
are compelled to perform their duties towards
their creditors. The power OF the Legislature
h Sam Or sTa is such that +
obedience to such requirement may be en-
forced by mandamus."
One OF the most common cases in which the
writ OF mandamus is employed in tax matters.
to v as os s9sr dqy o. ss
or for the payment OF some demand. and they
Burroaghs on Taxation. .. ISL, says:
remedy for the creditor. the courts of common
corporation, who are invested with the power
OF ievying taxes, directing them to levy q suffi-
tax tax t9a pa he debt Of the Rnnd
THE proper mode of enforcing or compelling
tuS Ol uuLy OI loEYlQR anu COL
Letting taxes js by mandamus. which Is an ade-
quate remedy"
The REALTORS in this case have no other ade-
quate remedy Unless the corporation respond
ent can be compelled to collect the interest due
on these bonds by taxation. it does not appear
that there is any other way by which the funds
can possibly be raised; Any law. therefore. the
effect OF which would be to deprive REALTORS Of
this right. which existed when their bonds
were issued and fo med part of the
contract created by the act Of 1884, impairs
the obligation of that contract. and to
that extent is absolutely null and void.
This case does not present q question of the
If acts Nos. 5 of 1870 and 81 OF 1876, SO far as
they affect the taxing power of the City Council
and the authority Of the courts to compel the
bar. and are constitutional. the REALTORS have
no remedy at all. and their bonds are merely
the representatives of an abstract right which