The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-05-04
IN AND ABOUT THE CITY.
NOT TAXABLE UNTIL 1894.
City Attorney Adams on Taxing South
ern Extension Property.

City Attorney Adams on Taxing South
ern Extension Property.
In recent issue OF the MORNING NEWS a
reference was made to report concerning
the opinion of the city attorney as to the
taxation by the city of the extended limits
south OF Anderson street The opinion was
asked In caucus of the city council by one
OF the aldermen, and was given orally
Since then Mr. Adams has been asked for a
more definite statement OF his views on the
question, as those expressed in the paper
we're based upon unofficial information, and,
IN compliance with this request, Mr.. Adams
said that he had no objection to his views
being known, and would, therefore, state
them in brief.
1t will besnoticed, he said, that when the
&C OF the legislature of September, 1888,
was passed, providing that none of the real
estate in the extended limits should be sub
Ject to municipal taxation for a period of
ten years from the 1st OF January, 1884,
tnls entire section was outside of the cor
porate limits of Savannah and was no more
subject to its taxation than property in
another state would be: that is to say, the
case presented is not that OF an effort by the
legislature to exempt property from mu-
nicipal taxation already within the corpo-
rate limits. When this law was passed, it
was IN the power OF the leg
islature TO keep this section out of the cor
porate limits entirely, and, in Mr.. Adams
opinion, it was also within its power to put
1t IN with condition or qualification to the
effect that while this section should be
within the corporate and jurisdictional
limits, the real estate should not be within its
taxable limits during the period mentioned.
Mr.. Adams called attention to the fact
that the act also provided that none Of the
residents within these extended limits
shall have the right to vote
at any municipal election until
the right Of taxation shall have accrued to
the city, that these residents were not made
full and complete citizens, and the section
became part of the city sub modo only,
with certain conditions and qualifications
Mr.. Adams opinion was and is that the act
Is constitutional as it reads, but, he said, if
unconstitutional then the same result would
follow, namely, that this section would be
as completely outside of the city as it was
before the act was. passed, and would be,
therefore, as entirely exempt from munich
pal taxation as is property at the Isle of
Hope.
In reply to the question as to whether an
act Of the legislature might not be good in
part and bad in part, Mr.. Adams said that
this was true as general proposition, but
ne said 1T was also true that il it appeared
that the legislature would not have passed
the law at all but for the unconstitutional
portion, then the entire law would be void.
Mr.. Adams said that he was satisfied,
from the reading of the law and from what
he had been reliably informed as to the
reasons and causes for this exemption. that
the legislature would not have passed the
law but for this exemption, and that it was
SO completely part of the legislative intent
that it could not be disregarded except by a
disregard of the entire statute. But, in the
opinion of the city attorney, the act Is valid
as it reads, and the courts, he thought,
would SO hold should the question ever be
made.
Besides all this, Mr. Adams said, the act
is perfectly plain and unambiguous; any
taxation of the real estate in this section
would be in the very teeth of the law pro-
hibiting it. and could only be justified upon
tAe assumption that the act was unconstitu-
tional. He thought that it would not be
proper for the city council, without any
adjudication by the courts, to proceed
upon such an assumption. Even the highest
courts in the land, he said, sustain the
constitutionality of a law and enforce it,
as it reads. unless its invalidity is made
beyond any reasonable or rational doubt,
the courts always sustaining the conStitu-
tionality of the law if possible. This being
so, the city attorney thought that it would
not be proper or seemly for council to disre-
SdIu Inc pam Inanuage OF the statute.
Mr.. Adams was asked if there was any
similarity between this question and the
ground rent question. and, in reply, he said
he failed to see the most remote or distant
He said that If a statute of the state of
Georgia were produced providing that the
ground rent lots should be exempt, then, to
the extent that there was a statute in each
case, there would be similarity, and even
then tie analogy could not be extended any
further. In reply to the question as to
what was the remedy of a taxpayer who
thought it the duty of council to tax this
property, he replied that the remedy by a
petition to the superior court for the writ
of mandamus was ample and complete.