Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1881-06-15
Expressions In Regard to the Late Decl.
slons Of the Supreme Court.

Meeting Judge T. W. Brown yes
terday a representative Of the LEDGER
knowing that he entertained some de-
cided views, engaged him in CONVEX
sation in regard to. the old city debt,
which resulted substantially as fol-
lows:
Question. What is your opinion of
the decision in the 0'Connor case,
and was it expected by the bar?
Answer. The decision was uuavoid-
able after the one of a year ago, which
held the Taxing District cOnstitu-
tional, because it was a municipal cor
poration. | do not, however, think
that it was generally anticipated by
the bar. Some, however, did expect
it, ard amid the firing of cannon and
the iubilatioh on the bluffs that greeted
the first decision, gave warning, that
consequences would follow exceeding
" dangerous to the city. | gave such
warning, and heard of one other law
yer who entertained the same views.
Our popularity at the time was not
however increased by the expression
Of these opinions.
Q. What will be the practical eff
feet upon Memphis, and will creditors
have a remedy on judgments obtained
against the Taxing District as success
sor of the old city, without the aid Of
further legislation?
A. What the practical effect will be
it is difficult to state. The natural
consequence, it seems to me, will be
to engeRder in the minds of the people
uncertainty for the future aud de
press real estate.
If the courts follow the line Of de-
cisions heretofore laid down, no legis.
lation will be needed to have final
process against the officers in control of
the Taxing District to levy taxes for
satisfaction of judgments. If it be
liable as the successor Of the old cor-
poration to mesne process notwith-
standing the provision in its charter
that it shall not be sued, it logically
follows that il will be liable to the
same final process that its predecessor
was, although the power to levy and
collect taxes is withheld.
| would have you, however, to
understand that | have always re-
garded that line of decisions as en-
tirely erroneous and not founded in
correct constitutional Interpretation.
[ never could see that there was any
more reason to bind by contract the
taxing power than the police power.
Both are essential to the exercise by
a state of the sovereign function of
government. Courts now refuse
to recognize that states ever
intend to part with the
police power by contract. There is
no reason for putting the taxing power
on a different footing. The state
should have the untrammeled right of
exercising this latter power aud con-
trolling it at all times, as public policy
and e~xpediency dictate. 1t should
have the unquestioned right to with
draw its grant Of this power to its
municipalities whenever deemed ex
pedient. The provision of the federal
constitution inhibiting a state from
impairing the obligation of contracts
was never intended to apply to a state
in the exercise of its police and tax
ing functions. II is a total misappre
hension of that clause to so apply it.
But will the courts ever return to the
true principle? Sometimes courts
have overthrow p~recedents and gone
back in search Of the true principle.
The instances have been rare, and !
take nc encouragement from hope in
this direction.
Q. In the event the debt is put on
the city dollar for dollar, can it be
met consistently with tie prosperity
Of the city, and is there any legislation
possible that would battle the credit
Ors2
A.. To the first branch Of your
question | most emphatically respond
no. The debt would be crushing.
There can be legislation devised,
that would hold the creditors at bay,
and render their judgments and de-
mands fruitless.