Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-04-16

the limitation contaned i'm the act; but if The cenuaa
had turned his attention the case of Jackson and Me-
uaVocS, aud Hughes vs.. McClung, where all the doc
ihes oil the celebrated OF Nowand Cromwe n were
reviewed There 1t was contended that the act of 1871
ana mat clause introduced in the late revisa of 1919
wren declared that failure 10 enter caveat shall
not ehect tho legal equitable rights OF the parties
nad broken down the case of Nowland and Cromwell
me Court oil Appeals decided IN relation TO the scire
idcas law, TO repeal the patent; that il only nreecrih
the mode OF sueing out and prosecuting wits of scirc
iaclas upon these various grounds, aedging first ls
suggestions second that the patent issued con,rary 10
law; and thirdly, 10 the prejudice of the rrbt Of tho
individual And the Court in effect decided tba, II Wa,
only revving the forfeited and apsed Equity that he
might have had if he had avaled himself of The caveot
law. Sir in any aspect you may view the law Of
1914, II was perfectly innocent and harmless Ind.od
, me only objection that could be urged against that
Iaw as gong TO settle Western land titles il tha, ~
was inefficient in its operation not that il was cac,I,,
cd TO have mschievous tendency upon the rich. IS
inc community but that it did chsnge the nrcsen,
s'a.e OF h'ngs therefore, beg the Senate not TO re-
ceiye that law rule measure the benefts ,h,
may result from the passage OF the law under consider
alton, aud as to the ton introduced al the lao ;
sat- 'e court decided that 1t was only prospective i'm ;ts
operation. ~" us
shall now proceed 10 answer the gentleman mo,
the constitutional power OF the State 10 create am abs
lutte forfeiture. He contends in the 6r.t Ne 40.
this law is expost faco in its operation and tberot
unconstitutional, by npairing the obligation of con-.
tracts 10 air understanding OF this case II iii -
necessary 10 examine tho nature Of the con,rac, -,
tween The government az granior and the indivdu, a.
h'n'ee' Inc contract is simple plain and concise
Inc government OF Virginia proposes to sell her IL
upon certain conditions that is pay me so mrcb ,
acre. and will grant you the iec-snpe; reservng ~
me same time the right to hold this land as le;,i'
mate subject oil taxation 10 deay the eynenses ArL
government. hat secures 10 you the enovmen, Of %
Zee SIMPLE Tor il is by the Government o,II, H
can ENJOY any oil the rights given and conferred bv The
grant Withdraw from you the prot ction thai the Co;
Verhmen Affords and you will hold your land b,, n 90,
PIecarlous tenure; the strong would rive laws 70 ~
weak, ana the corrupt and arbitrary will of no ,I
ne ms rule OF actions but by the aid of the Government
should you be dsseised, dispossesscd of The fee
P'e," possession, or any other wrong less agsravated
III It's nature TO re lrcss Your WRONGS vou ~, "
your ana The legally constituted authorities of the com
Uy therefore the paramount consideration j., r.
gram, Is, mat the Government must be supported
How much would you give Mr. Snester for H.
BEST tract OF land in this OLD Dominion II H. o
men' was TO expressly stipua,e in the grant ,bt o
were not 10 be projected by the Gave?nment'i in The
peaceabie enjoyment of the same? VIVA, 49,, ,1
you place upon such grant? Not ,nucb al. o'
would readily conclude with me- that the pro,iS YOU
We Government was the principal consideration in do
tact with any other condition. " son-
Lev us then apply these general provisions 70 ,In
secoh1 section oil the bill under consideration. TIC
second section proposes 10 forfeit all the deIna,
lands up to 1920. The question is where did n S
Vernmen get the right? The answer is Main ~, |
menced with the grant, and was one or tho ,;,: III
OF me grant Itself; and therefore, impairs NON of I
oDhgalons oil the grant contract between ,hn G o
vernment and subject 'N" 'he 90
But the worthy gentleman from Moponoou 49,
tends that the law of 1912, repeats all former Cof
OF lands and created lien upon the same m e,ule
ny; as The act OF 1911 proves concIusiveI,, 80 m, nc
iahd forfeited previous 10 that time vested in ,b CO
monweah, and the act of 1912 o,Iy oroa,n NV I'm
upon the hnd, which had been returned doi; iien
since the law OF ISL This Ien the rente,nsi en-
Iaoored very hard 10 prove to be coniract hctwaa 10
government and the delinquent nd-bolJors. VI ro
change or alter the contract, is uncons,;t,,,;i "
goes 10 impair The obligation of the contract II dn
seem 10 me, In Whatever light he NAV vfev, a. 80.
Ter, mat 1t Is no contract. always understood ~:
look TWO persons TO make contract: and II No., 80;
Janoa S ,o De correct ask hen what part the
TO have his consent on the part of the state 70 $50 my
law creating the lien, and if was MOI ,ooI 80 '"o
nave his consent TO create the lien? How can !, bo
necessary 10 nave his TO DESTROY 5 ard Is :,
does not require his consent in either case ho - -
impair any OF the obligations of the Grant mr. ro -;
You might as well say that having an ,,9 ,s'
against b. and the sheriff, by virtue of the evo,;
had executed BIS horse; A. in order IN favor u S'
I,s' ms properly Sold might be sacrificed for sum
ess 'ah ms Vaiue directed the Sheriff to release th
morse Tor the present; that was possible II rnLt @
we eAeSuuoh against given day, and if So he did
veil s a., sen MS morse say, sir, you might as
wei, say mat a never could revive his evec,,;oo
against Is, but must the gentleman states r 49,,
court OF equity to enforce the lien; for il the paintg
should attempt to raise his execution II ,yorId b @
CONSTITUTIONAL, and impair the obligation of tbat ver
solemn contract, entered into between the nIoin,if y
Ieiehuah' al the time the plaintiff told the Sheriff n re-
tease the horse OF the defendant when Tho Jac,nI,
might not have been in one hundred niles -,
Who does not see that is no contract ,yhie
ou' mere voluntary act of favour shewn the defend
/ light SDpa r
view the law of 1912; and all the Jegislat,r 1890,
to express, was that they would not forfeit abi'oI,
any more lands for the present. but least tbe law
heeaiter DC construed to mean that the State had Se
leased her claim TO the taxes due upon those IoI G
her remedy for the collection of those taxes Z,
expressly declared that the Commonwealth yvoii ;n
/ hold her lawful lien upon those lands and If IL - y.
any Tune necessary TO forfeit those lands 10 cnnrs
ule lien into an absolute forfeiture and coerce ,I,o -
meht oil taxes, or diyes the delnuuent of Lis t,o J
suppose Tor example, Mr.. Speaker that A NH ~,
oona LOT huhhred dollars, to be paid in ne,bing hui
gou OF slVcr, aud wac TO notify that he vyonid ,sL
virginia Back Doies, II he would tutnsl ,he, s 49,
given day. But failed 10 do 60 D,ss s"i r'
suppose that i, won Id be upcsnstiutionai ~ 'ar
coHect MS money, and upon the sane nripci,ias rs
reason, does any man suppose because The Covs m
me nj said TO the delif Glenis in 1912 wa Gin ~, a.
yat io'ien your lands II you like GOOD bones, III
2sns viii come before a certain given i'm al -
your taxes upon the.ssme that II ibev fsil 10 10y
'hSt me act oil dvour tHer'd 10 ht m shall orerat ~
hnh discharge OF The debt an1 be a comnnIa,e 10
i 70 me right oil recovery. II this is 10 be The rons,o
Won put upon acts OF favour shown by the cteIitr
Tear that we shall hereafter see very r,us e..
shown to debtors by creditors, as il will SesI,ov hi
right OF recovery. 10y "o''
| The gentleman speaks of ths being a bisb bo1s
measure, rot 10 he tolerated in this lard of bbe,to
re says, ~ E1gani In very extraordinary CAGE
SuCn as treason anu murder, sc they have laws n
'W'tIure' ~ q uie gentleman mean 10 cav t,a,. IL
dses ne mentor e. IRE the only Tor which Ind,
tenements were forfeited, sod thereby have tho g.
cate TO inter that in England ghe. - less ~ a.
mE o. h9man kndne's Is felt 'han there is in ,bjs
land of lbefy, and that even ibsre II 10 ooI, ~ M,
| lie Oh b., .Iog