Year: 1876

and perhapa more useful avocations have no
given him the leisure required for tho master,
and full comprehension OF legal questions. i
is to this fact that we owe the infelicity OF his
argument and citations against the validity o.
the tax authorized by the Legislature to be i'm
posed upon the people Of this city by their owr
vote in favor Of the New Orleans Pacific Railroad


Assuming that a corporation created by thu
people and Of which tho taxpayers are to be the
corporators. and which has been granted GER
tain public powers for tho public benefit, is a
private corporation for private gain. he refers
to the case decided by the Supreme Court OF the
United States. and reported in 20 Wallace, OF the
Loan Association vss Topeka


This was the case Of an appropriation py
City Council Of bonds in aid OF u conmerciai or
manufacturing enterprise for individual in
terests aud personal purposes OF proht and
gain-to furnish the capital for private adven-
ture The Supreme Court in deciding whether
Tho Legislature had the power to authorize taxa
zion for such purposes. distinctly declared that
taNotion for railroads was not OF the character
NJ that demanded by .he plaintiff in that suit.
That high tribunal said. referring to the discus
sions on this subject


II IL quito true that a decided preponderance
~ authority il to be found in favor Of tho propo-
eiion that the begislatu es Of the states. unless
restricted by some special provisions Of their
constitutions. may confer upon these municipal
bolics the righ' 10 take stock in corporations
created to build railroads, and to lend their
credit to such corporations also. to levy the
ery within their limits subject to general taxa
ton. to ennble them to pay the debts thus in
Cured.


The court then proceeded to show that the
tax thus imposed was held valid because it was
levied for public use or object which it was the
ripht and tho unty Of State governments to as
sist by money raised from tho people by taxa
tiou that roads. canals, bridges, navigablee
streams, and all other highways had IN all
times been matters Of public concern. That
such channels of travel and OF tho carrying
business had always boon established, improved
and regulated by the State. and that the railroad
had not lost this character because constructed
by Individual enterprise aggregated into cor
poration.


There are othor characteristics Of a public
nature conferred on these corporations, such as
tho power to obtain right of way. their subjec-
tion 10 the laws which govern common carriers,
and the like 1T IL conceded that when the pur-
nose for which tho tax was to be issued. could
no longer he Justly claimed to have this public
character but was purely in aid Of private or
personal objects the law authorizing il was be-
yond the Legislative power. and was unau-
thorized invasion Of private rights"


There is much more to the same purpose in
this decision


For our worthy Mayor to rest on this decision
In favor Of his extraordinary proposition that
the New Orleans Pacific Railway s a private as
socation for individual profit and gain. affords
another illustration Of tho old maxim. that
every man should stick to his trade. and that his
honor in adjudicating legal questions. with such
able attorneys by his side ncurs as great a risk
OF burning his hands MS those able city coun-
selors Messrs Jonas and Blanc. would IL they
were to go to his honor's foundry. and while
Archie Mitchell was immersed In the study Of
Adam Smith, attempt to east n plow-share or
shaft for steamboat.


Even without this legal authority. relying on
his own good sense and knowledge, Mayor
Leeds could not possibly have reached the con-
clusion that railway company. organized as
the New Orleans Pacific is private cor
poraton created for individual gain. He knows
to the contrary. and If he did not, the very OBJ
ec and tenor Of the act he seeks to defeat would
have corrected his ignorance. That act has in
view to interest the whole taxpaying people
who compose the public" In the profit of the
road. and thus prevent the corporation from
being made a private one for individual gain.
The franchises and property Of the company
would therefore. be as much public property as
any Of the buildings or other property purchas-
cd with the taxes Of the people. and dedicated
TO public use.


Having disposed of this, tho leading legal pro-
position of his honor. his veto message next de-
scends TO the very small-we were near saying
puere one-that the act Of the Legislature pro-
vides no means for taking the vote of the people
on the or dinance. If his honor is serious in
this. that the City Council cannot legally defray
the expenses of an election which the Legsla-
ture directs to bc held we think that his scruples
can bc easily satisfied by holding the election
without paying the expenses. which would be
alike practical and severely economical.


His honor next maintains. but does not
trouble himself to elaborate or cite authorities
thereto. that the public character of this corpo-
ration. FOR which the people may be taxed. re-
uuires that il should bring its road into the city
Immediately. and that the people have no right
to tax themselves for n railroad how yalua-
bic and important socver it may be to their
welfare and interest which Is located mt a
distance from the city. No reason is assigned
for this purely typographical destination. III
the people can tax themselves for railroad. we
presume that they will hardly be denied the
right Of locating that road whore 1t will do most
good Certainly there is no such distinction
recognized i'm any judicial decisions we ever
heard of~


The misapplication by his honor Of the con-
stitutionm requirement that taxation shall be
equal and uniform throughout the State. is too
obvious for comment II is pervcrsion to say
that this clause prohibits state tax except
upon the whole State. The clause as has been
ahundred times interpreted by all the courts.
means simply that among all persons subject to
taxation the tax shall be equal and uniform. 1t
doesn't mean that the whole State shall be taxed
alike and that local. parish and district taxation
are unconstitutional: only that the people so
taxed shall bear like burden. Nor Is it State
tax, but a local tax for the particular sections
for whose benefit the tax Is imposed.


The point of his honor. based on the title Of
the BILL that the act itself levies the tax whereas
the title only authorizes a tax to be levied, is
quite too nice. not TO say thin" for ordinary
comprehension We do not see how a tax can
be levied by an act of the Legislature, That act
is usually practical. we may say manual. one
which an act Of the Legislature may authorize
some ono to do. but could hardly do per Sc We
imagine that the collectors and attorneys will be
found necessary to perform this function, and
TO be authorized thereunto.


Next his honor ascends to high ground Of
representative authority and dignity. He as
sumes that the people have transferred to our
city Administrators the exclusive and absolute
power of taxing them. and it is great wrong
and indignity to their municipal mightinesses"
Tor their constituents to resume this power and
undertake to tax themselves without the consent
OF their agents. Taxation without represen-
tation" has hitherto been regarded cardinal
Vice OF the tyranny which our ancestors sup
posed they had effectually extirpated in this
b,,y, rAJ n,,t AT,,,.