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

~
this change the State will save the 81
tire amount now proposed to BIZ ~
apart for the expenses Of assessment and co
lection. They do not say this Ia 30 man
words, but they leave 1t to be inferred, an
they urge their plan with all the enthusiasm
that would be- Justified II such were really +
be the eject. The fact Is. however, that eve
II the Administrator Of Finance could collec
the State taxes az expeditiously and thor
oughly as regular State officer could do, til
total saving to the State would not excee,
$4,000. The reduced city budget renders
impossible for any city department to do adj
ditional work without additional and CORE
spending expense. Extra force would hav,
to DO employed. extra books would have to b,
procured, and. In all respects, the chang,
would amount simply to the transfer Of 90
| Of subordinates from one official to.another
with the difference that tho one official woult
thereby have more than he could properly
attend to. The maximum saving possible Il
the $4,000 already specified. and this compare.
lively insignificant sum must DO made to Of
set d hundred objections and disadvantages
Let us consider some OF these:
In the first place the constitution desig-
mates the collector Us the person who shall
sell property for delinquent taxes. Could the
Administrator o. Finance give proper atten.
tion to these and to similar sales on city
taxes2
Then the city has levied tax OF Is mills,
although the constitution says that she shall
levy only 10 mills. It IL fair to assume that
delinquents will make this the basis or liti-
CATION and that injuncttons will be applied
for In the courts, thus embarrassing the
municipal officer and prejudlcing all the in
terests represented by him.
Another consideration Is that preference
would inevitably be given the city taxes by
an official only remotely responsible to the
State, though directly and consplcuously re-
sponsible to the city
Again, the Legislature is now considering a
new city charter, and matters are In eucn a
Condition as to render extremely pefilous the
experiment proposed, the duties vi the future
financial officer might be 30 defined and re-
stricted as to be incompatible with the duties
devolving on him rs collector OF the State
taxes. Certainly II would be an absurdity
under our institutions to turn over the con
troll OF two-thirds OF the State funds to an
official over whom the State has no imme-
diate authority. The constitution empowers
the Governor to remove the tax collectors for
cause, but how could the Governor remove
an Administrator Of Finance, no matter how
derelict he might be to the State, so long as
he remained faithful to his municipal respon-
sibilities?
This official Is essentially servant OF the
city. He owes his allegiance to the city and
stands upon his city record. Such record as
might be open to him to achieve would be
upon his merits as city official. Such popu-
larity as he he might hope to win would be
among the constituency by whom he was ele-
waited to Office, and his means OF winning such
popularity would lie wholly In the line Of
promoting the city's interests as opposed to
all Others II any question should arise-if
there should occur any emergency requiring
him to give preference as between the city's
and the States affairs, who can doubt the
direction In which that preference would
be manifested? It is simply preposter-
GUS to suppose that a city official
would display the same energy in
collecting the reven Of the State as he
would In the case Of the city. For doing the
latter he Is explicitly elected and we'll paid,
whereas for doing the former he Is only indi-
rectly accountable and will be inadequately
paid. He is q part Of the city government
an obscure and unknown quantity In the
State government. It Is Idle to retort to this
argument by saying that he could be made a
State officer also and could be paid enough to
encourage him to do his duty. The answer
to such plea would be that the State officer
already exists and that there is nothing In
the new revenue law which contemplates for
him more than reasonable ana modest
remunera @5M.5m.--
The truth Is that all this outcry Is nothing
more or less than foolish and mischievous
device to cover real desire to embarrass the
new State government. 1t bears upon Its
face the most profuse and eloquent evidences
- A., Al,,oa