Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-06-22
;, ,,ss ,h,oueb the hands oil the Sheriff.

Moreover, he lnOushl uha' '"S -, Il
Wv. western land titles in new conlusioh-ln
.,'oonenrr nj the sales OF lands Tor 1n-pay-
,,,an, ~ these leyies He was therefore, iof put
,ino The County Courts under the control oi po-
nniar iustruclion-ant they would thank u lor
Inns relieving them againsi some OF INC '.'"I1
mrn;s Ia The odium they have lhcuiieu'
shou,d therefore 90 for striking oul anu tnosius
M, amendment quoted above. de resisted inc
novelty introduced by these sections.
MIR. SCOTT. The objections dIged ny sen
tlcmep that these sections embrace Inc power ~
taxation. without representation, are ho' l"';1
auplicahle--inieed, there is no such anomaly ~
The sIaute-books oi Virginia. The Legislature
NAV easily fix the taxes for public purposes
,hrouoh ne ,nstrnmenlalilies u lis committees,
a uditor and other otficefs-buI il could mol TX inc
local taxes for each county, because they Wouiu
dpnend ON The expenses ol The county, ana u
wauld be necessary TO appoint somebody IN each
county 10 audit the constantly varying charges
AGAINST each county. That very junction mas
been performed by The County Court, which exc
cutr, 4 du,y. that from lis Gatnre, the Legisla-
rure itself cannot perform. The duty has been
ueriormei by The County Courts Tor time iInine-
mortal, without objection, and can DC ocuer as
charged by them than BY any Other BODY OF pei
SON They audit and liquidate The aggregate
amount chargeabe upon their county, anu ,,en
he l,tsO
lion. This they have done, 10y giving The 20 yer
of lew 10 The County Courts. whose acIs are
ius, as lawful as il directly exercised BY The LIE
eislature. All that The County Courts 10, Is "
audit and ascertain The aggregate amount u
| charges and arrange the rae OF local ta3aiioii
under the authority ot The Legislature; anu sun
| this is denounced as odious anomaly. Ou'-
nm is altempcd here TO be cast on the County
Courts 70 fleet certain purpose-yet, sllli gen
temep refuse IL go the whole length, ana s'like
| out The entire provision, bu stop win Inc motion
10 strike out The ionnh section, Whlch empowers
| the County Courts 10 distribute The leVits over
new subjects, property as well as persons, on
which state taxes are Justly levied so as TO make
The public contribute equally Tor public purposes.
Why not exercise this same just and equal sys'
| ten, in regard 10 local, county purposes ms
| fourth section only auhonses The County Iourls
10 tread in The footsteps oil the Legislature, and,
in their sound discretion, 10 levy The taxes on the
| same subjects on which Stale taxes ale imposed.
| Is there any reason Why his power should oe
abused Mr. S. protested against perpelualins
| in The Code The ca ptdIon tax The most unjust
and unequal tax that can be devised 10 the pre-
ludce OF The poor and IN direct conhics win me
well established principles oil political economy.
| Taxation should be according 70 properly, anu
| th. pecuniary ability 10 pay. On the application
/
been granted 10 them, 10 levy on taxable subjects
as well as persons. In reply 10 an enquiry OF
| Mr. PrRRow, why he Tax On timetables was not
| done away with Mr.. ). said he presumed he
Revisufs had put his new Lax ~ The dtIcTettoB OF
| The County Courts, 50 Is 10 indulge The views Of
| certain aniQuarians here, who ar so welded 10
the old system Of The capiiaton Tax. MI. ,. ar
| gued a, some l.uein that the power could mol be
| abused. He vas perfectly willing 70 rSpunge
| tom he Code The odious principle oil capita
| ton tax, and 10 make il obligatory upon thr
County Court 10 levy on the property Tor county
| purposes Mr. 5 appealed 10 th- eentlem u
from Wes!m9relani 10 WilhiraW his mohon 10
| strike out, % a IL allow The gentleman nom
Greenbrer 10 m,ve his amendmcnt.
MIR. THOMSON Of Jefferson hoped the mo-
ton 10 strike out would not be Withdrawn, as
he was opposed 10 enarging ne power OF taxa
ton on new subjects. Unless there was Inc
quality in the present mode OF taxation aud un-
| less il was insufficient for county purposes, why
| introduce this new system He was informed
that neither Of these reasons existed. Mr. t. be-
lie we'd that ii this increased taxation Dc allowed
il would induce system of county internal lm
provement as rxtravagant the State system.
This nc wer had been given to Berkeley county
and The people had rebelled, on account OF The
i
ton had defeated The Wing nominees. Increase
the subjects of taxation and new Inducements
will present, themselves for wasting more mo
ney For these seasons be hoped The motion 10
strike out would be adhered 10.
Mr. SMITH enforced his objections 10 the
section in reply to Mr. SCOTT II gives the
county cour, power L. discriminate in lesying
on various subjects If the section were 10
Il r fhn 4. a. "
General Assembly taxes, he would 20 heartily
with the gentleman from Greenbrler.
Mr. PRICE could accommodate the gentle
man precisely an: READ tho 'ae'on "hich Nc
should propose.
MIR. HERBERT thought the difficulty might
be removed by amending The ID section, so as TO
make al! the property IN a county tuAhble ioi
county purposes.
MIR. LACY renewed Mr.. PERROW'S motion
10 amend, SO as to require the concurrence OF a
majority of all The acting justices Otherwise,
three justices may exercise this power OF taxa,
ton when they could nct transact ordinary bu-
| sness.
MIR. MONO URE Of S-This section contem-
plates that there must be an order OF a eou't--
| in which case al least one fourth Of the acting
justices shall CONCUR
Mr. LACEYs amendment was agreed to.
Mr.. WATSON The County Court, under
this 4h section, has the power 10 say that one
shall pay mol only on his person. but on his pro
perty. He could mol agree with the gentleman
from Fauquier that the only true principle Of
taxation was according to his ability 10 pay
Mr.. W. thought thai The true principle OF taxa
ton was according 10 the ability 10 pay and the
interest in Tho government He, therefore, pre-
| ferred the law As II now stood, as embracing
This prime lie, but as il was probable that if the
4th section be changed II will be amended &C
cording to The views Of the gentleman from
Greenbrier, TO which he was opposed, he was
induced 10 adhere 10 the section as Il now STANDS,
and should oppose The motion 10 strike out.
Mr.. DORMAN, 10 make the section IS per.
feet ar possible, moved an amendment, so as 10
limit the taxing power Of county courts 10 HE
Stale taxi other words, that the county la
shall no! exceed the State TAX; and TO prevent
them from discrin mating in taxes, al unlimited
discretion by fixing the lax in propog ION TO lhe
| taxes imposed by The Legislature for State pur-
poses.
The people were very jealous oil increasing The
powers OF The County Courts. Under his section
they might in their discretion enter upon gen.
eral system 0. Improvements, railroads, &c. he
was oppo.ei to giving moe power 10 this ire
sponsible body.
] Mr. SCOTT saw no necessity Tor The amend
menl, as il was almost impossible Tor The amount
Of The taxes IN any county 10 exceed the STATE
taxes In some cases, power is gwen 10 some
counties TO lax tor specific purposes-bul The
amount oil taxation i: fixed in those special laws,
and conflict may arise between this amend
met, and those special laws. The amendment
Will be nnsaioTy IN that case, Or conflict with
other VS., ard ii will be useless in other cases,
because the taxing power is Limited. The next
section, also, provides Tor an appeal 10 The Cir
| cult Court in cases ot erroneous leyes. II
would te singular anomaly-hrsi, 10 give 4
County Court the power 10 build Court Houses,
&c, and then deprive il Of llr power al us dr.
crelion, u provide the means Of meeting those
expenses. The Limitation is III the wrong
| place. Il should be. On The subjects and not on
| the amount OF taxation. The Code provides
against The discrimination complained ol.
Mr.. DORMAN- genileman's argument