The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-11-11
Pavement TnN.

To the Editor of The Post.
Houston Texas, November t0.-Refer-
ring TO the article by "N'importe" in
Fridays issue OF The Post. relative to the
amendment to the tax refunding ordi-
city council, 1 wish on behalf of myself
and other Interested taxpayers to add
few suggestions in support of the views
expressed by "Nimporte."
| When, by the supreme courts deci-
sion, 1t was settled that the tax in ques-
tion had been illegally collected, and
the legislature TO repair the effect of
the injustice done by the collection, au-
thorized the city of Houston to refund
either in money or tax rebate the sums
so wrongtuliy taken, the clear aim and
intention of that act was to right the
wrong done to the taxpayer who was so
mulcted-'the party who had paid out the
monoy-who mad suffered by the wrongful
act. and not to some subsequent vendee
OF the particular piece Of property
whether removed from the original
owner. one or a dozen removes In the
chain.
| am satisfied that some OF the al
dermen have not given this matter the
consideration 1t deserves. and we are un-
willing 20 believe that any one OF them
desires TO do a manifest injustice by
making reparation 10 the wrong person,
the making which reparation Is the very
essence and spirit of the legislative act.
4 THE retunding is not a conyenaut run
ming with the property; 1t is the indie
9 pendent Nct OF the law making power
for the benefit OF the party who is out
y the money he or she was Illegally com
. PEELED to pay; IT is outside of and has nc
: connection with the property. beyond the
fact thai the property, like the certih.
+, cate and coupons paid, constitutes thu
: evidence merely OF the Illegal collec.
:. tion.
To illustrate; The property in som,
y instances may have passed through
= dozen hands. and it Is safe TO say tina
N the paving tax did not enter into tn,
- consideration of the parties in any cas-
D OF its transferrence; indeed, in a grea
g many cases. the vendee had never hear
re OF the paving tax.
le But / understand II Is urged that tn
{, property was enhanced in value and tn
III seller got his refund in the price asked
~ Wen, we'll. would not the same argu
ed ment apply If the property was not sold
IN Would not the enhancement in value h
s. the same no matter In whose hands tn
n property remains and II that Is 80, VIII
az refund at all? tt Is a matter persons
re to the party who paid the money. an
by extended 10 him through the authorit
de of the legislative act.
of There are all sorts and conditions
M circumstances that prove the injustice
~ settlement on any other basis. For II
ha stance, as "Nimporte" says, parties ha
~ sometimes TO sacrifice one piece OF PROF
80 eIlty to save another IN meeting the pal
~ ment of the tax. Again. take this cas-
personal TO the writer, though inquii
may develop Others similar. When Wasl
ington avenue was frst paved--wi
lplank--he never questioned the illegalb
er, OF the tax. but desiring TO see the CT
ay go ahead. paid Il. Subsequently u
nd planks rotted and were carted off al
I'm the street left In a deplorable conditio
After this he sold the property. Sure
ar there Is no question OF enhancement
W. value In this, but the contrary, and y
ds he Is out Of pocket the money he pa
~ out, and which II was the plain purpo
a. of the legislature TO restore to him. Wi
~ what grace can the vendee demand
upon what grounds?
No, gentlemen, the only safe way, I
IL. only just way. the way that avoids al
- crimlna tions of all and every kind a
M carries out the spirit and intent OF I
law. is TO refund to the person man
woman, who pafs the tax, either I
kmoney or the rebate in tax. No o
else has either the moral or legal ria
TO Il. Respectfully. W. N. shaw