The St. Mary banner. (Franklin, Parish of St. Mary, La.) 1889-1931, 1900-08-25
Communications,
TIE VEHICLE LICENSE,

| Somebody wrote an editorial for the
Waterman, which appeared in its issue
o: last week. under the above title,
which, if entitled to any credit. would
reflect very disrespcrtiully upon the
Board Of Aldermen of this town. We
have too much regard for the inte!li-
| gcncc of our people to fear that the
editorial will mislc"d anybody; but, hav
ing the paternity Of the Vehicle Ordin-
| ancc, | feel constrained to reply to the
editorial, for the information of its au-
| thor only.
| The writer of tho editorial begins by
fattering the Waterman possibly to get
space for his article), by insinuatinG
| That it was in compliance with the
IDEAS set forth by the Watchman in its
issue of August 2n0'' that this Vehicle
| Ordinance was passed. If we had passed
the ordinance simply on the suggestion
| of the Waterman, we would plead guilty
| to the charge of carelessncss; but we can
| assure the editorial writer that we will
| never take such long chances Oh guess
| tons of conStitutiunality and legality.
by following any suggestions of the
Waterman. There is not a member of
| the Board or municipal officer who res
| members reading any article in the
Waterman Of August 2nd on this subject,
nor on any other particular subject, for
that matter. We fear that the writer
was wlfully trying to humliate us,
when he insinuatcd that we passed the
| ordinance in compliance with suggestion
Of the Waterman; and when the writer
says we are wrong because we misinter-
prctcd the suggestion of the Waterman
he is unreasonable, or else lie is trying
to Jolly the Waterman.
But the editorial writer brands the
ordinance as an absolute nullity, because
it lcvics a LICENSE on the use of vehicles
and the occupation OF streets, instead OF
levying TAN. He says: This is plainly
a LICENSE and not TAX. and it takes
no finely drawn argument to distinguish
the vast difference in the law"
We admit it is a license ii is a license
tax and not a property tax. If it were
a property tax (as the editorial writer
insinuates it should be-, ii would be null;
because vehicles are already taxed as
property. Eut the ordinance does not
tax the vehicle. it taxes their use and
their occupancy Of the streets; j, is a
police regulation, III Il certain sense, be-
cause it provides that the revenues thus
derived shall be appropriated and used
for the improvement Of the public streets
of the town. a merchant may have as
many vehicles in stock rs he sees fit and
he will not pay road tax or license on
them, unless they are used upon the
public streets. Hence it is not prop
erty tax. For the enlightmcnt OF the
editorial writer. and 20 correct his ideas
that this ordinance should provide for a
property tax instead of license, as il
does, we beg leave to refer him to Il re
liable authority furnished us by our
counsel, The American and English En-
cyclopedia of Law, from which we
quote: Municipal licenses are usually
required for various vehicles using the
streets of city, and often for drivers
and teamstcrS."
We also beg leave to refer the editorial
recent decision en- the sub ject: Biddlc |
vs. Philadelphia r. Co. l Pitts (Pcnn~
sylvania Repor), p. %; and the case of
Bats VS.. Mobile. 46th Alabama Report |
y. 1873. In both of these cases the SUI
prcmc Courts held "a person who re-
sides out of the city, hut rides into the
city every day to his business in his car
rayc, may be required to pay a license !
on his carriage In another paragraph,
the American & English Encyclopedia
says: Municipal licenses are sometimes
required from owners of vehi-
Giles etc There is absolutely |
no warrant that VIC have been able to |
find, for thinking this vehicle license
should he a property tax,
The editorial writer concludes his !
criticism with the following free and
sarcastic advice: ''And feeling that this
vehicle ordinance can never be enforced,
we would suggest that the Town Council
repeal it and set about not to pass Il
new ordinance, but to collect the tax /
that justly rests upon vehicles under the
State law
We do not appreciate the above adj
vice, and will certainly not follow it.
Nor will we ever follow the suggestions
and advice furnished us through the
editorial columns of the Waterman. IN
less perchancc these ideas happen to
coincide with our own ideas, which are
our official guide. We intend to enforce
the vehicle ordinance. because We cons
slider it a good law, and il constitutional!
ordinance This town is in tleplOrablc
condition, and we need revenues to inn
prove our streets. Those who use the
str Gets should not hesitate to pay the in
significant tax; and those who use it
most should pay in proportion. The
larger number of vehicles citizen has |
the more use has he for coed streets,
hence the more taxes should he pay, and
tie more willingly should he pay them.
But, if any citizen thinks the streets
of Franklin are good enough for him in
their present condition and desires to
eyade the payment of the Vehicle License
tax, the Courts are wide open and we
will submit gracefully to test of the
ordinance If we are mistaken in the
passage of this ordinance. it is a mistake
of the mind and not of the heart.
Respectfully,
WILSON T. PETlRMAN.