The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-10-31
THE TAN PROBLEM.
NEW ORLEANS. Octohor N

To tho Editor Of tho Demoernt
Your interesting comments on the TAX
| Problem suggest certain considerations nv
which tho diflieulties are and ought to be
promptly solved. and III order to develop the
discussion 50 that tho city fathers mny net In
] time and ntellgently submit tho following
views:
/ There can be no room for discussion TINT
the Administrators, Mt tho time fixed by ex-
| listing laws, must act In exercising delegated
powers until they arc repealed; so that Ia
providing a tax for 1880 their charter enacts
that tho laws In force In December. 1870 arc
their only guide The adoption OF d constIt,,
ton which goes into effect only III OIL after
January 1880, containing d limitation was
Intended to infect tho future and cal, produce
no retroactive effect upon their powers. exer-
cisnd under pre-existng Legislation, and can
apply, IL Mt all. to municipal taxes levied 70,
1881. Tho schedule Of the new constitution
provides Tot Its proclamation by tho Govern
or. II adopted, before II arpersedes tho Old.
aud rs the Council hns the power to act fir
teen days before tho last Monday In Decem
Der, 1879. It IL clear their powers are not
threatened or touched by the adoption Of the
new constitution This apparent difficulty Is
more Imaginary than real
Now AS to the duestion OF their duty to
levy tha ~ MIL tax, there can b. but one do
termining. First. Il ID thell duty 10 doso ill.,
EXISTING legislation. Second. Tho contem-
plated limitation of 10 mills docs not nlplv
to the city tax levied under Tho lnwa AZ ,4Tp |
colectihle Ia 1850. but IL d provision. which |
II legal. ls intended for 1881 and suI,snn,iont
years Constitutions. like other laws. are in
tended 1pr the future, and can have no retro
antiv" effect upon pre-eXisting Legislation IN
tll repealed hy the PRONUNCIATION, provided
10y t,at purpose. and the Council Will have
acted before that time. Third, 1t follows
therefore, that the Council has 40 alternative
but W levy the Tux at Is mills. u,Iesa II
wishes to jeopard It's legality by postpone
nnnt- But there is another consideration
l. Wnich =. Is overwheln'tng and unanswerabIe,
sustaining ny conclusions. and it is this An
my opinlon) BY tsection &. or tho Premium
BPnd oct, page 55, act 1916: 1T shall be tho
1uty OF The Council, annually. to levy al
uuhi ana uniform tEx on I'll the asseseed
property within tho corporate limits of tn
'lty, at rate sufficient to provide ths
amount included Ia tho budget as aforesaiI,
mt said tax. 81 levied, shall CONSTITUTES d
'pecal fund TO be used for 10 other
purpose than the payment Of saiu bonds
md Interest on the said premiums com, !
'flsed IN said allotnents, and tho funds ~ !
alsed shall bo placed to tho credit OF an ne.
ounl " ~ called tire premium bond account, {
~ ll no money from said fund shall be paid 7
aissioneis of the Consolidated Debt. The
hid tax - ~ IT, raised shall be denomInatad
40 premium bond tax. and shall be- separate
mentioned IN the tax rolls aud REGENTS
roVlued that the taxable power of The anr. u
grafton of tn city Of New Orleans for aIl j
urposes. Including general administration
,hooi. polce lighting, salary Of officers u
ourt expenses and every other purpose OF G.
ovefhment. including the sum to bs raised n
pmN the premium bonds as above stated IL
lall newer, until the full complete ma linn u
iVment OF the said premium bonds. excead ci
~ rate 81 - pcr cent On the dollar Of aII
10 assessnd vaiue of property subject To tax ol
lon within the limits of tho said city of New pl
r!"tlls. The above limitation Of the taxable tL
'Wer of lha corporation II hereby declared nj
90 contract. not only with the holder of IN
9 sain premium bonds, but also with all OF
sluehts ana taxpayers OF the said city, so Ii,
70 authorize any holder Of said premium al
nos. resident or taxpayer, to legally object til
any rate of taxation In excess Of the rate n
lted.n ''''s ar
iere Is contract with thebondholdar, resi De
at and taxpayer, to tho extent or IL per fo
IL, which cannot BE- impaired Nv any ann pl
luent legislation. even by constitution. 81
der The provision Of tho Federal constitu wi
d prohibiting the impairmcn: OF contracts be,
state Legislation Or judicial interpreta- tht
n, and II tho Adm Illustrators net accord
ly there Will be little hope that any in1ej-
ont court in tho land will not sustain thetn
act differently would involve the city In 4 7
yrlnth OF litigation, and result disas- ~,
usly beyond q human doubt Resides ~ ~
SO legal views there would be manifest IN ~, ~
tlce III such course not contemplated bv y" i
lralmers OF the constitution. y. ice,