Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-12-24

ought to be before it, The law OF ear must be look.
tor the cohecon OF revenue. II il for the settlement
OF titles then il ought 10 apply the western country
alone He voted for the bill of last session. believing that
both policy and justice demanded that those disputed titles
to large tracts should be quiced But this law, in
stead OF quoting titles would unsettle aud destroy
most every title in this section Of the State II i'm
possible to conceive the number OF titles that would be dis
turbed by its operation Numbers ofndivduas with the
list of forfeited tracts before Them could no. determine
whether their lands were included i'm them. The proy
sions for the protection OF tcswere very satisfactory in
where individuals knew that their lands desig
nated but where they could not know it, what remedy
could they have? He would notice instance of this
kind in the county Of Fauquicr. He had the name
Of ho Marshall r in the list and found that the tract al
luded to Mas held formerly by an uncle of his afterwards
resident in Kentucky. That person had married LADY,
who lived with him but short period, and died without
issue. In her right he held tract of land spd the taxes
were entered in his name Alter the death of his ,v;f
he removed to Kentucky, and the land reverted TO her
iamy-ahd but for the great age Of brother who recol-
ected the FACTS they might have been known to
ed. Something must be done to relieve the people from
the difficulties with which they now threatened He
would never give his aid to prevent the exaction from in
viduas OF whatever might be due by them the Sate
but he could never give his vote Tor a measure which
would disturb the well settled titles of the State.
Mr.. Preston did not rise oppose the reference of the
resolution, to speak in its favor but shew gentlemen
that they in error in suppong any bill could be
passed that would effect the object they had in He
thought the merits oil the law had been fairly repro
scnted 1t was said that the bill would unsce the titles
in sorhe OF the counties But that did provide for
OF former aw for all the tracts affected by that act had
been forfeited before. And what did the act of last scs
sion do 1T gave the gentleman from Franklin to whom
alusion had been made further time for the redemption of
his land, which had been forfeited. Similar acts had for
merly been passed In 1920 further period was allowed
and still further time by an act of 1922 But, in 1925 the
Legislature passed another act in which they declared
that they would give no farther indulgence and by which
all the estates in Eastern Virginia. returned DELINQUENT
were nrfeited Now, what does this law doy Ii orders
the publication of all the lands so forfeited and vests in
the individuals in possession the right to the lands which,
by their forfeiture, vested in the
ouch was te character OF the act which gentlemen were
now attempting to run down.. Ii takes the land forfeited
to the commonwealth, through the neglect of S..er or
other officers, through the rcmssncss Of the owners
and vests it in the Individual holders giving them time to
pay up the arrearages. Would the gentlemen from East
c Virginia say that those individuals should not be made
TO pay the taxes! And if not, why object the law which
gives further time TO pay them in The effect of the law
would be, that if time given pay them they would
not pay the 10 per cent damages BY the repeal of this
law the foreign holders would be mostly benefited as the
damages their lands Mere the considerable He
knew in which the damages on tract held by
foreigner amounted 10 SO 900 and if the damages were
RENTED, the foreign holders would be let i'm to wcop the
whole country. The Western landholder was willing to
pay the damages and those in the Eastern section ought
also TO do It, Any attempt to discriminate between East
en and Western land titles impossible nor ought the
provisions OF the law of last session be objected TO-
pecy as the lands set down in the lists had been previ-
ousy absolutely forfeited. He had since the commence
men OF the session received large number of letters
correcting The errors oil Shes &c., but those
tainy did not afford any argument against law which
provided for the extinction of foreign land titles in
Virginia.
MIR. Witcher would not agree with the gentleman from
montgomery as to the operation of the act Ii was true
That put down the ignorance of the West and the igno
rance OF the East and it also put down the people to
year, but he denied that the lands in Eastern Virginia
were ever forfeited There different classes of lands
One which sold for the taxes and another which would
not sell Tor the amount of the tax There were MANY of
this class in the county of Fankn; and he believed that
single forfeiture could be found i'm that county He
believed that would be ascertaned that in all similar
Inrfoi
wealth had mere lien upon them; he should not be sur
pissed to lind that the commonwealth. had only mort
gage upon them, and that the State had such right
was assumed Tor it, to sell them for mere
He had one other suggestion make il was that the
Sherought to be authorized TO 90 upon the lands and M
enough topay the taxes.
Mr. Preston rose to correct the gentleman from Pittsy
vania There forfeures the Literary Fund in the
county OF Frankin-some 1920 and others
which were absolutely forfeited under the act of 1879
Mr. Brodnax said that in his part of the country they
were not Interested in the operation of the act under dis
cuSsion and they therefore might be looked upsn i'm the
light oil arbitrator between the sections affected nv
There was one part of this resolution which he never could
olt was proposed to pass local law, which was
not necessary from the nature of thc'obecs attained
But he would ask why if the provisions of this bill were
on one part of the State they should not also on
another general law relative to all lands i'm the condi-
ton OF those to be operated upon would certanI be the
most proper measure, and ought TO be satisfactory II
would be disastrous day for Virginia, when system of
local legislation should obtain If there were any de-
renee in the condition Of property parts of the
State was easy to apply the provisions to the different
situ"uois o lie therefore moved amend
the resolution as to strike opt the concluding clause,
thus avoid the objection.
MIR. Morris said that the motion met his views ne he
was entirely opposed TO local Legislation.
Mr Broadus SAID, that in presenting his resolution he
had endeavoured 70 follow the wishes of his
lie wished the provisions OF the law TO be to those
to whom 1t would prove beneficial and to them alone
lie objected in general TO local legislation but he could
not by any other MEANS obtain his objects he therefore
could not conscntto the amendment
Mr. Gallaher Observed that if the amendment took place
mere would be no new inquiry instituted as he had on
Saturday last presented series of resolutions which
proposed to revise the whole system He recolected il
nag been SAID last year, by the gentleman who ramedthe
bill, that the people of tie West would lightbev ouobt
70 Highland he would fight with them for its passage
He had regretted his vote favor oe the bill last year and
his people would Highland ought to ARCHITECTURE they
would submit TO the sacrifice of their dear bought rights
by allowing the destruction OF the titles by which tbcy
held their homes and their property.
Mr. BrodnaX said, that if the goncman's remarks were
correct they afforded good argument against the passage
of the resolution at all.
Mr.. Miller of p. was happv that bis discussion had IA,
ken place, as it afforded the Committee valuable nfoma
ton Had been the opinion of the Legislature last wear
that the act ought TO be confined the Trans
country, they certainly would have made such DECLARE
lion. lie could object TO be effected by bringing
this resolution before the Committee. Every portion Of
the subject necessary, now before them
Mr. Morris moved that the resolution be laid on the ia
bic H. as the gentleman from p declared every neces-
sary portion of the subject now before the the Com
mittee, the reference would be useless.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to-
HENRIco ELECTION
On motion OF MIR. Mcibancy, the report of tbe Conn
mttee OF Privileges and Elections in Of John Minor
Bots contcstng the election of John G.. Williams dele
gate returned from the county of Henrco, up