Year: 1868

We copy the following from the New Orleans Buie-
tin, which is said to be from the pen OF one OF the
leading members of the bar Of that city:
To the Editors of the Commercial Bulletin


The act levyng special tax to provide for the pay
of the past due interest on the bonds OF the State
outstanding warrants certificates OF indebtedness and
Convention warrants is not post aco law, as it
has no relation to crimes and penalties. See Mun'y
No. i VS.. Wheeler & Blake, 10 An. R., p. 745.


But this act provides that the tax be levied accord
ing the assessment rolls of 1867 Is not there
fore retroactive and retrospective in its operation and
does it not violate article 10 of the Constitution,
which prohibits noune the-passage of retroactive
laws? True is that the Supreme Court OF this State
has decided that the future imposition and collection
Of taxes according to past assessment is within legs-
ative power" (See 10 An. R., p. 755; Ii An, 26o
But it must be remembered under the constitution of
1852 and that unlike the constitution of 1868, it
tanned inhibition against the enactment OF retroac
tive laws, hence the Supreme Court then not him
dered by any express prohibition in the constitution as
it now is" 1t is general principle OF constitution
al law that the law only provide for the future
Constitution of the United States Art. Muny No.
VS.. Mchond, An, 610)


Secondy-The constitution of 1865 article 118,
provides that "taxaton shall be equal and uniform
throughout the State All property shall be taxed in
proportion to its value to be ascertained directed
by law" The act under consideration virtually de-
stroys the equality and uniformity contemplated by
this article of the constitution. But let US see how
this act will operate.


A man who has purchased lot of ground and erect
ed princey palace upon it within the past year only
has to pay tax upon the value Of the naked ground
it stood year and half ago. while he whose resi-
dence has been destroyed by fire, water other
uaty will have to pay the assessed value of his ruined
estate as it stood on the assessors rolls Of 1851 This is
not equality uniformity nor is it the ad vaorem tax
which the trainers of the constitution of 1868 evidently
had in view The provision of Art. l1S, requiring
property to be taxed according to its value evidently
according to its value the time such tax shall
may be,imposed, and not according to its previous
value, which may have greatly changed or perhaps
have been entirely destroyed As Justice Preston
marked in the case of Municipality No. vs. Michond
The power to levy and collect taxes has ever been
understood to operate prospeetivey, and retro
spectively contended. If the Council could legally
tax for year back, reason to prevent them
from doing SO for any number Of years. Such has
been tie interpretation of the power to lay and
collect taxes either by the Legislature or political cor
porations acting under its authority" So we say in
relation to this Iaw-if the Legislature impose
tax according the assessors rolls of 1857 they can
also impose according to the rolls of 1926 which
power is clearly denied them.


For these reasons am of opinion that the act levy
ing tax of per cent according to the assessment
rolls of l867 violates article 10 of the State consttu
ton prohibiting the passage OF retroactive laws, and
also article 49, requiring all property to be taxed i'll
proportion to its value etc. Tha act being uncon-
stitutiona null and void it is the imperative duty of
all good citizens to resist the payment of the taxes de-
manded, by and through the proper legal means


Very respectfully,