The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1897-02-24
AN IMPORTANT DECISION
Rendered by the Supreme Court Rela'
tive to Taxation In Favor
Of Railroads.

Mr.. Justice Watkins, as the or.
gan of the Supreme Court Of Lou
isiana, rendered the following opin-
ion last week, which is of interest
not only to railroads soliciting a
tax from the property owners, but
to the tax payers themselves
Citizens and Taxpayers of De.
Soto Parish vs. George D. Will
liams, President Police Jury ct ais
Appeal from the Ninth Judicial
District Court, for the Parish Of
DeSoto.
The provisions of articles 200
and 242 bear upon the same sub
.ject matter, the increase of adj va
loren taxation upon property with
in the parishes and municipalities
of the State. Same are laws in
pari materia and must be con.
strued together. What is meant
by the phrase ''by a vote of a ma
jority of the property taxpayers in
numbers and in values" occurring
in article 242 is a majority of the
property taxpayers actually pres
ent and voting at an election. All
qualified property taxpayers who
absent themselves from elections
duly called are presumed to assent
to the expressed will Of the major.
lty of those voting, unless the law
providing for the election other
wise declares.
Judgment annulled and revers
ed. Plaintiffs demand rejected.
The facts of the case are as fol-
lows: Some time last year, in &C.
cordance with a petition presented
by what purported to be one-third
of the property taxpayers of the
Parish of DeSoto, the Police Jury
ordered an election to take the
sense Of the property taxpayers as
to whether or not a five mill tax
for ten years should be voted in
favor of the Kansas City, Shreve-
port & Gulf Railway Go. The
election was held and the tax re.
ceived a majority of the votes &C.
taally cast in numbers and amount
of property.
In the meantime, the railroad
company, supposing that all the
formalities of law had been com
piled with and hateyerything had
been done bona fde, constructed 43
miles of road through the parish
at an expense of $4,000 per mile.
But the levy of the tax by the Po-
lice Jury was resisted by a mum
Der of citizens and taxpayers, upon
the ground that it required a ma.
jority of all the property taxpayers
i'll number and value, to vote . tax
legally, instead of a majority of
those actually exercising the right
to vote. The decision of the Dis.
trict Court, Judge W. P. Hall pre-.
siding, was in favor of the contes.
tants aud the tax was declared
invalid. The Supreme Court, on
appeal, reversed the decree of the
lower Court and in effect declared
that a majority in number and
value of those actually participa-
ting in the election is sufficient to
vote a legal tax.
This mooted question having
been positively determined by all
adjudication of the Court of final
resort, there can be no further
doubt or contention as to the legal
prerequisites necessary to consti-
tute a valid railroad tax. If any
number of taxpayers do not appre.
ciate the right to vote upon the
proposition aud absent themselves
from the polls, their Mches cannot
be invoked to the de.
triment of the road in favor of
which the tax has been voted aud
which has complied with all the
conditions imposed upon it.
Ten Thousand Dollars Each.