Tensas gazette. [volume] (St. Joseph, La.) 1886-current, 1922-04-14
TOO MUCH TAXES"

tilted 100 MUCH laxeS, puDiiSnSo
in our issue Of March 81, has at
tracted wide attention and from many
quarters have come letters of COM
mendation as well as of criticism.
The following are several that have
reached our desk:
Letter From Hon. Gilbert L. Dupre.
Opelousas, La, April 8, 1922.
To the Editor of the Tensas Gazette:
st. Joseph, La.
Some one very thoughtfully mailed
me a copy of your paper, under, date
of March 31st, 1922, in which your
Senator George H. Clinton expresses
the opinion that my proposed amend
ment is not practicable, in this, that
it would bring about repudi-
alton of outstanding tax levies and
bond issues by local subdivisions,
parishes and municipalities. This
question had been previously asked
me by your Mr.. Thos. M. Wade.
NV answer is contained in the letter
herewith. 1t was written by a gentle
man reputed to be one Of the best
lawyers of the State, District Attor-
ney for four years, Parish Attor-
ney fourteen years, and Bank Presi-
dent nineteen years, and now the At
torney Of the largest Road District
in this parish. His bank doubtless
purchased and owns, municipal bonds,
parish bonds, drainage bonds, road
bonds. He speaks by the card. am
quite certain when Senator Clinton
reads and digests the law referred
to in Mr.. Dubissons' letter, he will
revise his opinion. The letter fol-
lows:
April 7th, 1922.
Hon. G. L. Dupre,
Opelousas, La.
My dear Gilbert:
In our conversation on yesterday,
I told you that the bonds Of the local
subdivision of the State would not
be affected by a reduction in assess
ments. The following were my rea-
sons for the statement:
1, Under Article 281 Of the Con-
stitution Of 1898 certain Of such sub
divisions were authorized pursuant
to q vote Of the property taxpayers
to incur debt and to issue bonds
therefor up to Ito Of the assessed
valuation of the property located in
the subdivision, and to levy a tax to
take care of the bonded debt up to
five mills on the dollar Of assessed
valuation in any one year. The pro-
vision relative to the amount OF
bonds that may be issued, has never
been changed. The rate limitation
continued in effect until 1910, not
having been affected by. the amend.
ments Of 1904, 1906 and 1908. This
covered a period of low assessments
and the rate Of taxation was usually
IL not informally, fixed by the vots
Of the taxpayers. That, however, die
not affect the amount Of the tax tt
be paid when the assessments were
raised because as the tax-money
could not be used for any other pur
pose than the payment of the bonds
and the interest thereon, the rate
was lowered to meet the new stu
alton.
2. In order to increase the value
and to promote the STABILITY Of such
bonds, the amendment Of 1910 pro
vided that the governing authorities
should levy and collect each veal
q tax sufficient to pay the principa
and interest falling due that veal
provided that the tax should not ex
coed ten mills in any one year. Tha'
continued to be the law until the new
constitution went into effect. Under
it the ten mills limitation wa!
dropped.
3. Therefore the amount Of loca
taxes to be paid to take care o.
bonds is not affected by fluctuation'
in the assessments. This is relativel!
the case for bonds issued under TIL
constitutions of 1898 and 1913 ant
absolutely the case under the con
stitution of 1921. The amount Of tn
: taxes and its sufficiency to take car
Of the bonds might be affected il
two cases. First, as to bonds issuet
between 1898 and 1900, if the as
assessments were reduced below thos,
on which any issue was based, and
secondly, as to those issued between
1910 and 1921, if the assessment
were so reduced that ten mill Ia,
would be insufficient to meet tn
principal and interest Of bonds fall
ing due in any one year. The fiv
and ten mill limitations, Of course
do not apply to the aggregate o
bonds but to the bonds for each pur
pose.
Trusting that I have made mysel
clear, ! am,
Very truly yours,
E. B. DUBUISSON
I am a debt paying man, and
would shrink from any attempt t,
repudiate any honest obligation. M,
legal instincts told me ] was no