The Ouachita telegraph., 1881-01-07
THE POWER OF TAXATION.
TN. O. CITY Item. /

IN. o. City Item.l
In his great argument before the
Supreme Court in the case of b. Saloy
VS.. the City of New Orleans, the Hon.
j. b. Eustis clearly demonstrates that
governments would he delusive If the
power over the question of taxation,
which vitalizes all their functions, was
not an essential part of sovereignty.
This assumed, its exercise is matter
of political discretion. 1t is contended,
moreover, that an administration can
not barter away its most essential
power of sovereignty under the forms
and stipuiations of contract. The
new assumption of a taxing power, in
vented by the Judiciary, not based up
on representation or direct response
bility, is analyzed with searching
severity aud condemned in the most
emphatic manner. The Fathers of the
Republic feared that the judiciary
might oconstitutionally destroy the
constitution" but never dreamed that
the sovereign taxing power of State
euld be usurped through judicial ac-
ton, or be made the subject of a bind.
ing contract.
declares, is one which ssthe people
selves than any other power )" and
he wishes to know awhether the State
judges, disobeying the solemn COM
mands of the power that created them,
shall follow the false teachings of Fede-
raj Jurisprudence, and set aside as not
written the most peremptory and most
beneficent provision of their State con-
stitution?'
The Supreme Court of the United
States has held that State can not
contract away its police power and the
question is pressed: 0In what degree
is the taxing power less essential, less
governmental, less political, or less
sovereign than the police power ?'
The State constitution having placed
limit upon State and municipal tax
alton it is contended that judges who
derive all their power from that con-
stitution and have taken an oath to
support it, can not conscientiously dis
regard its most essential provi1ien.
Furthermore, it is declared that the
State judges are not bound in the con-
struction of constitutional questions by
the decision of Federal judges.
In closing his argument Mr.. Eustis
said: tsUnder this view of the law the
whole responsibility for the tyranny
and oppression of Federal judicial tax
alton rests upon the State judges. II
they adhere to the ten mills constitu-
tional limitation, this whole scheme OF
judicial taxation is defeated, in this
manner The Federal judge Issues a
mandamus that the city shall levy n
tax the city does it; but that does
not collect the tax. The only other
mandamus that he can issue is, that
the city shall collect his taxes as it
does other taxes that is-by suit /; for
the United Statet Supreme Court has
decided that the only machinery that
the Federal Court can use is that
created by the State law. Suit on the
judicial tax can only be brought in the
State court, as the Federal court has no
Jurisdiction of suit by the city
against citizen of the State. When
sued in the State court the taxpayer
raises the question that the Federal
Judge has not the jurisdiction to issue
writ to levy taxes. The State judge
decides the point well taken and dis
misses the suit. Nothing more can be
done by the Federal judge, and the
people are thus entirely relieved from
every judicial tax"
This plan, it was contended, would
not only restore constitutional govern
ment, but would also restore value to
property, prosperity TO the city, and
compel a fair adjustment of municipal
Indebtedness.