Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-03-19


taxes and to levy upon the public and pri-
vate property of the city and its inhabit-
ants. This the Circuit Court did, the Leg
islature meantime having repealed the
charter, having resumed possession of all
the public property of Memphis, and hav-
| ing by another statute created a taxing
| district, to be administered by a receiver,
| with full powers. This was the state of
things upon which the Supreme Court
was called to adjudicate, and it decided
that since the charter of Memphis had
been repealed, and the Legislature had
resumed full control of the place ON behalf
of the State, the Legislature alone could
exercise the taxing power, and the Courts
could not take that attribute Of sovereignty
| out of its hands.
The following extract from the decision
will show how utterly inapplicable it is to
the case of Sacramento "When creditors
"are unable to obtain payment of their
Judgments against municipal bodies by
execution, they can proceed by man
damus against the municipal authorities
!" to compel them to levy the necessary tax
" for that purpose, if such authorities are
"clothed by the Legislature with the tax
sing power, and such tax, when collected,
''cannot be diverted to other uses but if
:" those authorities possess no such power,
"or their offices have been abolished and
the power withdrawn, the remedy by
"the creditors is by an appeal to the
Legislature, which alone can give them
"relief No Federal Court, either on its
"law or its equity side, has any inherent
Jurisdiction to levy tax for any pur-
"pose, or to enforce a tax already levied,
"except through the agencies provided by
claw" This contains the real burden of
the decision. 1t is perfectly clear that the
rulings of the Court can only apply to
cities which, like Memphis, have had their
charters withdrawn, and It is equally clear
that no State Legislature but that of re-
pudiating State like Tennessee would con.
sent to the withdrawal of city's charter
to enable it to evade it's just obligations.
There is, however, another important
point in this case. The Supreme Court
takes pains to state expressly that the
doctrines it lays down in regard to Memphis
do not apply to cases where taxes are
levied as the consideration of contracts.
1t says that "where the tax provided is
g so connected with contract, as the
Involvement for its execution, the Courts
twill hold the repeal of the law to be In
valid as impairing the obligation of the
contract. 1t isnot of such taxes, constitut-
ing the consideration of contracts, that we
care speaking, but of ordinary taxes
authorized for the support of govern
ment, or to meet some special expendi-
''ture." This amounts TO an express
exception of all such cases as that of Sac
ramento from the application of the rulings
of the Court, independently of the fact
that the dissimilarity of condition between
this city and Memphis renders all analogy
impossible.
The whole argument in the Memphis
case proceeds upon the assumption that
the city charter has been Withdrawn, and
the municipal corporation has been dis
solved. The Court, as we have shown,
holds in explicit terms that where the
charter has not been Withdrawn, the cred.
itors have recourse against the city by
mandamus, and that laws levying taxes
as the consideration of a contract cannot |
be invalidated in any event. AS Sacra-
mento has made contract with its cred |
itors, and as its municipal officers have
been vested with the necessary legislative
powers to fulfill this contract, it is per-
fectly apparent that the Supreme Court
holds such fulfillment to be necessary and
unavoidable, and whoever henceforth pre-
tends that the Memphis decision makes an
opening for municipal reputation so far
as we are concerned, may justly be charged
with attempting to deceive the public and
to misrepresent the facts.
An attempt has been made to show that
the Courts ruling in regard to the exemp.
ton of public and private property sup
ports the erroneous views heretofore adj
vanced. What the Court really says is
The private property of individuals
i" within the limits of the territory of the
+" city cannot be subjected to the payment
"of the debts of the city, except through
:" taxation. The process of taxation is leg
Z" islative, and cannot be exercised other
GO wise than through the authority of the
" Legislature" All this means is that
when city has lost its charter the Legis-
ture alone can provide for its taxation.
When, as in our case, the city retains its
charter, the municipal authorities exercise
the legislative power of taxation. Bat the
first citation made in this article COM
pletely covers the case so far as Sacramento
is concerned, and demonstrates beyond all
cavil that the Court has laid down no doc
trines which in the least degree impair
the recourse of our creditors, or which pro-
tect us from their claims We must pay
our debts, in short, and no aid or comfort
Tor reputation, direct or indirect, can be {
had from the Memphis decision.
RECKLESS ISLANDER.
The San Francisco papers continue TO
make gross and malicious misrepresenta-
lions concerning the Drainage Commission
On every opportunity. Their reckless
SANDERS upon the Attorney General and I
The State Treasurer in connection with
The payment of the warrants drawn in
discharge of last years Indebtedness of the
Commission were fully answered in our
o.L ;ssra hv tba of1a;.Is .-s,;IaJ ~