Year: 1876

title of the bill, that the act itself levles
the tax, whereas the title only authorizes
tax to be LEVIED, is quite too nice, not to
say ''thin," for ordinary comprehension.
We do not see how tax can be levied by
IN act of the Legislature. That act is usu-
ally . practical, We may say . manual, one
which an act of the Legislature may au-
thorize some one to do, but could hardly do
per se. Weimagine that the collectors and
attorneys will be found necessary to per-
form this function, and to be authorized
thefeunto.


Next his honor ascends to high ground
Of representative authority and dignity.
He assumes that the people have trans
ferred to our city Administrators the
exclusive and absolute power of tax
ing them, and it is great wrong
and indignity to their municipal
mightinesses' for their constituents to re-
sumo this power and undertake to tax them
selves without the consent Of their agents.
Taxation without representation" has
hitherto been regarded cardinal vice Of
the tyranny which our ancestors supposed
they had effectually extirpated in this coun-
try q hundred years ago. But our Mayor
evolves new and somewhat antagonistic
idea that taxation by the people, with repre-
sentation-by their own direct vote-is the
greater wrong and oppression. How his
honor can reconcile this proposition with
those preceding it denying to the repre-
sentatives the authority to impose this tax,
is somewhat puzzling. The usual Republi-
can idea has been that what powers were
not conferred on the government were re-
served by the people. The people are SOW
ereigu, but the representatives, agents.
The former have all powers which the lat
ter have, and q great deal more. Their
representatives, federal, State and munich
pal, are mere mandatories to carry out their
will.


The Mayors other objections to carrying
out the mandate of the Legislature which
represents the sovereign power of the State,
are not Of q very serious charsct ter.


The limitation Of the city debt by the
constitutional amendment is not infringed
by this act, ss 1t does not propose to in
Sfo&S0
of great necessity and utility does not
necessarily, under this law, involve an in
crease of the debt of the city. If 1t re-
auired the issue of bonds it might be re-
earded otherwise: But this is not proposed.
The tax is to be invested for the benefit of
the payers.


It does not add dollar to the city's in
| debtedness. 1t does not subtract q dollar
| from other appropriations. 1t may induce
our city Administrators to reduce the sum
of these appropriations to other not so
necessary and important objects. We hard
| " imagine that the people will lament such
reduction. The debt of the State will re-
main the same. The people have only
given different, and perhaps wiser direc-
ton to their contributions.


The premium bond act is contract,
doubtless, and ample provision has been
made to carry it out. No one proposes to
violate or impair that contract. No court
would regard the city as bound by that to
make no other contracts. As long as it is
not proposed to use the fund appropriated
to meet the engagement of that contract,
there can be no pretext that the conditions
thereof are violsted or the rights there
under impaired.


The concluding reasons of his honor
against this tax have already been an
swered. The poverty Of the people, the
grievous nature of their present bur-
dens, admonish US of the unproductive
character of the application of the reve-
nues derived from taxation. 1t is believed
that if another direction was given to these
revenues, there would come great relief
of these burdens. With Q railroad to
Texas we believe that an immediate ad-
vance in the value of property and of
general prosperity would occur, which
would render our present burden lighter.
The fight of capital, the unemployed labor
and the paralyzed trade go pathetically de-
scribed by Mayor Leede, are mainly due to
the diversion of trade, which can only be
arrested by the early completion of this
road, and this can not be accomplished save
by the tax which it is now proposed the
people shall impose on themselves with or
withoutthe consent of their municipal repre-
sentatives.


Mayor Leeds invitation to the Council,
to resist the act of the Legislature and
make the constitutional issues which he
has set forth, in q return to q mandamus,
is not good legal counsel. Every lawyer
will tell our city Administrators that the
| right to make such issues exists in every
taxpayer; but few will advise that the
city Administrators should put themselves
in front of the people and undertake to de-
feat and obstruct their will. Let the peo-
ple determine such questions for them
selves, and let the Administrators, who are
the creatures of the Legislature, obey its
mandate and suffer the ror popui to be ex-
pressed. If that ror popuH infringes the
rights of any, or violates the fundamental
law, the courts can be appealed to, and
ample protection secured for "the rights OF
the few against the many"


For the present it is no part of the mandate
or authority of the Administrators to inter-
pose themselves between the people and the
judicial department.. The people will set
up their own pleas and conduct their own
cases. They have certainly not retained
the Administrators as their lawyers in this
matter. Their functions are purely execu'
tion and administrative, and their powers
are derived from acts Of the Legislature.


One Of those acts directs them to perform
certain duty. They can make no dipnified