Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-05-24

Mandamus to Compel One Per Cent. Tax
Levy for General Fund.
The most important case against the city
is that Instituted by Daniel Meyer against
the Board of Trustees to compel tire levy of
per cent. tax fer general purposes, 50 per
cent. of which, it is claimed, must be appor-
toned to the silkipg and interest fund, under
tie provisions Of the Act Of 1858. This case
came CT f3r Argument before the Supreme
Court, il baoi, yesterday, upon The dernur-
rer and motion to dismiss the proceedings
filed by counsel for the city. The plaintiff
was represented by S. Rosenbaum and S. C..
benson, while w. A. Anderson and McKune
& George appeared for the city.
It was urged in support of tie demurrer
and motion to dismiss that the pFovi.isns Of
the act Of 1873 relating Co the levy of taxes
has been repealed, and that the only resulz-
ton governing the levy of taxes and provision
for q sinking and interest fund Is provided for
under the Charter OF 1868. That under the
Acts Of 1858 and 1868 neither the city, its
officers uo- agents are subject to any process,
original Iaesas or fiusl. That the taxing
power, being ia its nature sovereign, cannot
become the subject OF contract IN the hands
Of private persons, and the sovereign Cannot
be compelled 20 exercise that poger. That
the Act Of 1855 is repealed by the Act of
1858, and that under ths latter Act the
Board Of Trustees have Discretionary power
to levy Eot exceeding one per cent. for geG-
eral purposes, aad having exercised that dis
cretion 10 ieyying less thar ore per cent, the
writ Cannot lie voked. That toe fiscal year
has expiret. snd had expired before the re-
turn day Of tho writ, thertfore no profitable
resul. could iollOw the issuance Of q writupon
these proceedings, and no additional levy
could be made or exeoutec, as the time spaci-
fed hy the statute must be the sole and only
guide. That even II the Act Of 1888 could be
invoked, 1t does not provide for an annual
tax, ans tax levy for that year would NEST
tds requirements Of that Act. That the
Court caneot lcgislate, and cannot insert
Tha. Il emitted OF omit what is inserted Ia
sny Act, ard he word annBsl being
omitted ia ths ACT Of 1858, cannot be supplied
by the Court That the BosTd cannot be
compelled t. levy tax 70 pay debt not due,
the bonds rot yet being due. That TIE city
csu ooly be coI3Pelied to carry iuto effect its
own o-gsnic Law, and caunos be charged with
the burdens OF It's predecessor. There axe
also several kecaaical points made.
Counsel FOR th5 city made IN elaborate
argument in support Of their proposition,
goiEg into she constitutional origin OF that
clause IN tbs United States Constitution
which declares. No State shall pAss any law
impairiag tie obligation Of cantrscts," claim
lug this clause had its Origia with TIE debtor
52d creditor c.s6ssg, ami that it was never
cqsSS5 pstel taas State Lsgislatures could
be prohibited from making public corpora
tions With certain powers. AID changing such
powers Of pleasure, "a that public corpora
ton oo1ld De compelled TO levy tax under
8 statute alter It's repeal. That the Act of
1858, bsirg grant ct p1liSicsl power, could
be changed q the will OF the Legislature and
different powers given. Thst this principal
Is well settled from the famous Dartmouth
College case down TO ard inciU3iDg the Gran
ger cases. Sinking Fluid cases, and lately in
the noted Jumss csse decided last April !;
that the Acc # 1858 provided that tie city
could lot be sued sc ell, aud under this the
bonds wers issued. Under he Act of 1868,
Tsps5g;-g. sss.sa.ss Act, Is q provided that the
city cannot oe sued or any contract msds
prior TO April 1853, bat IN all othsr cases it
eau be sueG-.h3wing plaiuly sae Legislature
intend 10 endOw tie city with sovereign
power 10 shat extern. That > pTovi-ion C
the Legislature 70 meet obliestions or debts
Is oHlY regulation, and is not ia any sense
, psrs Of thu contract, therefore can be
changed or repealed az pleasure. Many
authorities we're c.sed by counsel in support
of thsss y sitions
Cou0seI r the plaintiff insisted that the
Acs IS 1898 WAS c1ntrac5 betgeen She CRY
and the b0udhulders, and could not, under
tie Fe5eral snd State Constitutions, be re
pealed, and thAs the tex muss re levied there
under, aad tls principal ard interest paid
under its pTovi4i0Es thai the provision in
Sectioa l Of the Act Of 1853, aa3 Scion OF
tas Act of 1858. exemptine the city from
suit are Unconstitutional and have bssn so
hell IN New York and by Ju9se Sawyer, Of
the Circuit Court; urged that She Jumel casa
and Memphis case cited by defendant vera
both in favor Of the position of plaintiff, by
intendment; denied that the city IS unable 10
pay the debt; claimed shat the City True
tees are studiOusly avoiding She payment Of
just debts that our system OF special taxa.
ton for sp.cisl purposes is simplys trick and
frsHd upon the creditors. Counsel threatened
some tine to compel tie city 20 pay 80 per
cent. Of all special taxes c0llscted into the
sinking and interest fund, and said that all
the acts OF The City Trustees in this matter
amount 60 a species of reputation. The
plaintiffs counsel laid particular stress upon
the case Of English VS.. Sacramento Comfy,
reported in the 10Th Cal. Reports, claiming
that this case settled sll the rights of the par
ties. There were numerous authorities pre-
sented by plaintiffs council.
On account OF the great public importance
OF the questions Involved in this case, the
Court directed briefs TO be filed by both per.
ties, in addition TO those already before the
Court, it being impossible in so short ; time
SLOTTED for oral arguments to present fully
and satisfactorily tae various points.