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

q half OF that amount by special tax on real
estate and slaves. This may not have been
the city; = bat the Legislature clearly had the
power TO remove the restrictions imposed by
the act of 1852.
It did not concern the bondholders that the
old city debt should be apportioned TO the In
habitants OF the several municipalities, be.
cause as to them the separate Indebtedness OF
the municipalities had been novated and
discharged by the assumption and bonds OF
the city. 1t was no part OF the contract with
them that the quota OF the old city debt TO 30
paid by the inhabitants Of each municipality
should be fixed on the basis OF the value OF
the real estate in each In 1851, and that the
quota should be added to the separate debt
created by each, IN order to ascertain and es-
tablish the amount Of the entire debt OF each.
These details did not concern the bondholders.
They were simply the result OF the design OF
the Legislature to make the inhabitants OF
each municipality pay tho debts OF each as
provided by section rs OF the act Of 1896. 1t
was no concern OF the bondholders that the
annual sum to meet the interest and finally to
pay the bonds should be levied on real estate
end slaves alone.
Indeed as far as their interests were con-
cerned, 1t would seem that they would nat
urally have preferred TO have the entire tax
able property within the city limits subject to
the payment OF their bonds. Why these OBJ
jects were selected we do not know, but It
may be that 1t was because real estate and
blHFeS cDubtlJuteu ZIG RTtttH'f pHILD vi Jue tHA-
able value and were sufficient and that the
city desired to reserve the entire taxable
capacity Of every other species OF prop
erty for other municipal purposes.
All these details and arrangements
were purely domestic; they. concerned no
others than the inhabitants themselves, and
their whole scope and design was to adjust
among the inhabitants their respective contrl--
butive shares to the payment Of what had
become the common debt Of the whole city.
ShnhnVOan FxraUj(pd
that tax to meet certain railroad bonds
should be levied on all the taxable property
In the city. In 1857 the Legislature thought
proper to restrict this tax to real estate ex-
estate taxed under the act Of 1857, whose
property had been sold for taxes. The court
said the act OF 1854 was not contract. 'The
imposition, modification and removal Of taxes
and the exemption Of property. from such
burdens Is an ordinary exercise OF the power
Of State sovereignty. There was no pledge,
express or implied. that this power should
not thereafter be exercised" Black, SIS.
1t was not bondholder who com planned In
that case, but the principle is applicable to
shown that the property exclusively subject
ed was not sufficient TO pay the debt. Ger
tainly 1t applies with much more force to a
case such as that which we are dealing with,
In which there has been not withdrawal OF
property originally subjected to taxation for
the payment OF the bonds, but the subsection
Of the entire taxable property OF the debtor In
lieu Of the special objects originally SUBJ
jected.
The Legislature OF Louisiana, In 1856, chose,
In the ordinary exercise Of the power OF State
sovereignty, which 1t had no power to surren-
der. to require all property TO be taxed at the
same rate on the same basis OF valuation.
This effectually repealed the special tax on
real estate and slaves exclusively; but it did
not impair the obligation OF the contract with
the bondholders, nor did 1t diminish either
the sum to be raised annually for the consoli-
dated debt nor the resources from which that
sum was TO be raised.
In Dayton's case, IL An. 515, this court held
the act OF 1856 to be In strict conformity to the
constitution. 1t equalized taxation and re-
lieved the inhabitants Of the burden Of paying
in each district the debt of that district, and
imposed 1t equally on the whole city and Its
entire taxable property.
The bondholders have no right to interfere
with the administration OF the city govern
ment by requiring certain order In the bust
ness OF the Legislative departments OF that
government, and claiming the nulIltysof its
proceedings IL not In conformity with that
order. Nor can they, nor any other creditors
Of the city, compel the city government to
levy special tax on one species of property
exclusively for their benefit.
III these bondholders ever had any right to
demand the levy OF a special tax it was q tax
on real estate and slaves. But the s., 900
worth OF shares that were subject to taxation
~ ",
the burdens OF the owners Of real estate would
be thereby greatly increased II the whole tax
should now be levied on their property alone.
Such change was not contemplated by any
OF the contracting parties, and 1t would be
equitable and just to relieve the owners OF
real estate OF the additional burden by SUBJ
jecting to the payment Of these bonds all the
taxable property within the city limits il
that had not already been done by the act OF
1856.
We think that section 81 OF the act OF 1852,
In so far as 1t authorized the special tax on
real estate and slaves, was violative of ar
ticle 1877 OF the constitution OF 1885, then In
force. That 1t was repealed to that extent
by the acts OF 1856, and that the acts OF 1856
In that respect are In strict accordance with
article 127 OF the constitution OF 1s45 and the
corresponding article 1873 OF the constitution
of 1852, and that they in Io manner impair
the obligation Of any contract with the bond
holders, or with any other persons whomso-
ever. The levy Of the special tax on real es-
tate. as prayed for by relator, is legally Inn
possible.
It Is urged by counsel for relator that the
opinion OF the court in the cases OF Duncan,
Cummings and Burlington interpreted the con-
stitution OF 1915, and that the bondholders ac-
quired their rights with reference to this in
depreciation; that article 1877 was not applca-
BILE to municipal taxation. The answer Is, il
this be conceded, that In Duncan's case the
court decided nothing more than that the
poration, had the power to select single OBJ
ject OF taxation, real estate. In that case the
object SO selected was taxed equally at uni
form rate-1 per cent ON the assessed value;
and in the other cases the taxes were
equal and uniform. being a fixed
sum on the trade or occupation in each case
No court In Louisiana, so far as we know,
has decided that when the object OF taxation
has been selected it could be taxed at one rate
on given basis in one part of the State or
q rl11f 10 n
emit basis in another part of the city or State.
Ii the constitution of 1s45 did not forbid such
inequality in municipal taxation, it was for
hidden by the fundamental inherent principle
that taxation must ba equal and uniform on
the property taxed.
II the whole Of section 81 OF the act Of
1852 entered into and constituted the
contract between the bondholders and
the city. we incline to the opinion that
the whole contract would be void, because OF
the manifest inequality and want OF uni
formity in the special tax. But we think
that the contract with the bondholders was
that OF which the bonds are the evidence, the
lawful obligation of the city to pay the prin-
cipal and interest as stipulated Reiator
oil nto iyro+ hot ~ fbo% TO-