The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-12-20
Jackson, MISS, Dec. II, 1882.

/ ordinance submitted De adopted, as amended.
The following Ordinance, as amended, was
adopted:
Jackson, MISS, Dec. II, 1882
Hon. JOHN MoGILL, Mayor of Jackson;
DEAR SIR-As requested by you have look
ed into the question of the validity of the
city's titles 10 an Is in Jackson bid off to the
city at tax sales. l apprehend, and the de-
cided current of my opinion is that under
| the laws as they existed before the amend
ment of the city charter, in March, 1852, the
city took no valid titles TO lands struck off 10
her by the Tax Collector.
/ The revenue power of such municipal cor
! poration is just what is given by the LegislG-
tive charter and no more, and in determining
whether particular power is given the char
ter is strictly construed and the grant of pow
err must be found expressed in the charter. |
quote from the old charter, the only portions
| that confer revenue powers against land.
They Qhe NJ. and A. shall have power to
| levy q tax in each and every year in q sum
not exceeding 80 cents afterwards changed)
on every hundred dollars of value ON all lots
of ground or lots and tenements in said city"
| Charter, p. 5, Z 3.
The Mayor and Aldermen shall elect an
nually an assessor and collector oftaxes land
/ that the powers conferred upon assessors and
collectors of the county and State in relation
to the assessment and collection thereof be,
and the same is hereby conferred on the as
SCISSOR and collector o Nor said city"
Charter p. 8, 80, SlsgI2 RpA
~ Those are the 1fNf~ds *, s u 4 &rs against
real estate cons - 5Al charter.
That charter was ~ ana. a-sstary %, 1910.
At SIS NJ was Ii - tutboEiEipg
tax q Il in land for the So hs
Efrsss - Ave that power 10 Sta
| leert war Aassed in 1872, and therefore
Sectiss "a. not authorize the city collector
| to bidF 4Iiti Or the city.s4srA
! The s. tdrter s1as q january u,
1860. divided to Pnrr-
| chdSerS OF lots at cts0f bheT with
an approval and rats, 4 II & dch sale by
the board Of May n made on
the recorded ntZ 81 - Proceedings,
shall be pringE g. all the re-
quirements of law 81 IKE the sales
e have bee4 Charter, etcr
80 IS. -
srrIn Neither tfsaa6ffgfm21 charter, nor the
amendments thereto is there any power or
authority given to the city or any person for
it, to buy the property of its citizens fortaxes
either for its own or the State and county
taxes. All the legislative grants Of power 90
no further than TO levy taxes, sell for taxes
there is no power TO buy for taxes. Nor did
the corporate authorities (that | can fndl
ever authorize the purchase OF the property
of the city or direct that it should be stricken
off to the city until 1874, when the Mayor and
Aldermen ordained shat if at the sale Of
property" (rea or PERSONALLY for taxes, no
person bid the amount "of taxes the same
should be struck off and decided TO the city"
by the owners within two years, by paying the
sum of money due for taxes and costs of sale
with 80 per cent interest Z "a
Think that the foregoing quotations from
the charter and its amendments do not confer
on the city the power to buy lands sold fOr
city taxes. There cannot be pretence that
such power is conferred by them, unless it
be founded on the clause quoted from section
A Of the charter; that clause has no immediate
relation to the eitys power to make such pur-
nhaoae II aD1v nrpCprihp1 N uanarol
the duties of the assessor and collector but
certainly does not confer on them power as
city officer to do for her an act that was not
within the powers or franchises conferred on
her by that charter.
Again that power was not conferred; be.
cause at the time that charter was granted
the power to strike off lands to the State
did not exist in the State and county col
lectors, that was given in 1912. Hut. Code,
p. l8l, 10. Therefore section of the charter
created no such corporate power at the time
the charter was granted in l840 the charter
certainly does not corfer the power directly
or expressly-we cannot project the influence
of the quotation from section 4, through after
years and then rake it take effect in behalf Of
a subordinate municipality as a charter power
or franchise because in those after years the
Legislature gave to those State and county
collectors to purchase for the State, the SOW
ereign, without giving il to her subordinate
municipal corporation, that would be to derive
the State only could confer By express grant.
1t would do more, ii would by the most re-
mote inference take from the State herself
the most important of her sovereign powers
over those lands, the right to tax them and
raise revenue from them, for the very moment
that the lands become the property of the city
it was not tlxable by the State or county.
Code of 1871, 1855, that has been the law
Code of 1880 2 462. True the State has the
right to do all this, but it is not true that we
can by very remote inference say she did it
unless she has expressly said so in the
charter.
might add other reasons, but the above
convinces me that until the amendment Of
1882 the city never had authority or power
to buy lands at her tax sales.
You ask me to indicate my views ais TO the
best policy for the Mayor and Aldermen to
pursue in reference to the lands heretofore
bought by the city. l have examined the
amendment of 1882 (p.- to the charter. |
think that section supplies the deficiency Of
power under the old charter, and prescribes
mode which if pursued viii convey title to
The city if she be purchaser at her own tax
Iales. as she may be under that section.
Ii | am right in the two conclusions that
he city has no title 10 lands heretofore bought
1t her tax Sales but that it can get title to de-
iciency lands under the charter as amended
n 1882 the plain policy is to get rid of the
past purchases and restore the lands to tax
paying as soon as practical bic, take new de-
1aTture and collect taxes or buy under said
amendment. That is a very plain undertak-
Dg. cannot better express my views as to
he policy by which it is to be accomplished,
han to submit to you the draft of an ordl-
lance founded on those views. which do
erewith. Very respectfully, D. SHELTON.
The account of D. Shelton, Of 5000 for
pinion as TO the validity Of the City tax
tiles was allowed.
On motion Of Alderman Hull, the Mayor
as instructed to have the street lights on
'apitol street lit up according TO the calen-
ar, until April 1st, 1888, and arrange with
be Gas Company to do the same Adopted.
On motion the Board adjourned.
JOHN McGILL, Mayor.
n. H. McIEoD, City Clerk.
sknnfI, Can't Gnrvirn >,