The St. Mary banner. (Franklin, Parish of St. Mary, La.) 1889-1931, 1907-01-12
SATURDAY, JAN.12 1907.
[OFFTCIAL.
POLL JURY PROCEEDINGS.

[OFFTCIAL.]
POLL CE JURY PROCEEDINGS.
The Police Jury met this day in
regular session with the following
members present: j. A. Peter
man, President; F. G. Marsh, 3.
O'Brien, Hy. Hausmann, E. B.
Spiller, B. Levy, T. Aucoin,
Simon Leopold and Hy. Penn.
Absent: R. E. Milling and A.
Allan.
On motion duly seconded, the
reading of the minutes OF the last
meeting was dispensed with.
Carried.
The District Attorney submit
ted the following opinions:
FRANKLIN, LA, Dec. lst, 1906.
Hon. r. Hanf. Sect'y. Finance Com
mittee of the Police Jury.
Dear Sir.-I submit herewith my
opinion upon the bills of the Sheriff
submitted to me. The Sheriff is en-
titled to charge ten cents per mile
going and returning for taking p'is-
oners to Baton Rouge; and five cents
per mile going, for each prisoner
taken. in doing this he must take the
moat direct route, provided it is the
= u,t inexpensive and a safe one and
one that will secure the delivery of the
prisoner. The same rule applies in
the case Of sending insane persons to
the asylum. When the Sheriff goes
outside of the parish for fugitive he
is entitled to five cents mile for
conveying each fugitive, and all &C
tual expenses incurred, to recover and
convey fugitive from justice to jail
of the parish in which he is charged
to have committed the offense. When
q witness is summoned and at the same
time outside of the parish, the Sheriff
can charge ten cents a mile going and
returning.
AS to the charge for boarding pris-
oner in Jail he, the Sheriff, can by
contract with the Jury, charge forty
cents day for each prisoner, provi-
ded the food is furnished, but if a
prisoner is in Jail for day, or half
of day, and is not furnished food he
should not make the charge, in other
words, putting person in Jail does
not carry with it the right to charge
board unless board is actually fur
nished. believe this covers all the
issues of law upon the bills submitted
to me for my opinion. Hoping that it
does, l am
Yours respectfully,
W. X. WILSON,
Dist. Atty.
To the Hon President and Members
of the Police Jury.
Gentlemen:--In obedience to your
request, hand you my opinion as to
to whether the towns of Franklin and
Morgan City are exempt from parish
taxation.
Under Section 2743 of the Revised
Statutes and Act 81 of 1878. the Police
Jury is authorized to levy such taxes
. as it may judge necessary to defray
the expenses of the parish. Under
{ this section the Police Jury can levy a
tax upon all property within the par
ish except that which is expressly
exempt.
AS to the town of Franklin, it was
expressly exempted under its Charter
of 1874 from the payment OF parish
taxes. In 1876 it obtained a new
charter that did not contain this ex-
emptiOn in express terms, but this
last charter contained this repeating
clause: "That all laws or parts of
laws heretofore passed incorporating
the town of Franklin as we'll as all
amendments to said acts of incOrpo-
ration and all laws in conflict with
this act and on the same subject mat
ter, except such under which rights
have been acquired, are hereby re-
pealed. The express exemption
clause not being set out in the charter
of 1876 does this repeating clause as
to "rights acquired" keep alive the
exemption clause expressly given in
the charter of 1874? i.
In order for a town to be exempt
from parish taxation it must be ex-
pressly exempted under its charter,
BOA. 1143 Exemptions from taxation
are always strictly construed against
the exemption and nothing can be sup
piled by intendment or inference, IS
A. 668. The power to levy taxes is to
be literally construed and the exemp-
ton from taxation must be strictly
construed, As A. SOB.
Applying this law to the charter of
1876, we must conclude that the town
is not exempt from parish taxation,
we do not find in this last charter any
exemption clause and the only thing
pertaining to it is that part of the re-
pealing clause which speaks of ''rights
which have been acquired" If this
means the right of exemption given
under the charter of 1874, we can only
infer it and presume that such was the
intention and such presumption cam
not be invoked under the law above
quoted, there can be no doubt that the