Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1854-05-17
or HE Snectat0,
To "Many Voters"

last Spectator. Uhnt they dcnornindte "c"rgeS
rhich are preferred against me- submit The
tollo,cing reply
! am IN the first place asked whether ola MOI
know when was elected Sheriff that the Office
would be taxed | answer did not nor did any
one else, unless we have amongst us a prophet
for was elected on the 9th day of May, 1907
and the law authorizing the County Courts To Ia \
Sherifls did not pass the Legislature TILL The an
day ofJsne following.
MANY Voters" probably knew before hand
that such law mould be passed, and that, when
it ,cas passed, court. elected on the same DAY
was, ,rouh levy the Tax. Some people always
know. before hand, what is going to happen; al
least they tell you so afterit has happened. Inns
was the case with the old woman whose COW ea,
the grindstone.
Nut being similarly gifted did not know before
It was done that the Legislature would authorize
the tax.
But why hav'nt paid the tax! because
believe it unjust. oppressive and unconstitutional
The last is sufficient objection. II well founded
and suppose that the fact that am Sheriff.
does not deprive me Of the right. enjoyed by eve
ry.American citizen; of asking the courts of the
country TO expound law which seriously affects
me in its operations. | presume moreover that
the people of this county who have always been
distinguished for their love of Justice and regard
for the law. would not desire to have me pay the
enormous tax of fifteen hundred dollars, in two
years, under an unconstitutional law ; ] take il
they would hardly consider $500 90 paid into
the county treasury, an equivalent for violation
of the constitution. IL is the opinion of many,
whose judgment On a question of this kind is en-
titled 10 much weight, that the law which au-
| no tn l. VII
lation of our constitutions which declares that
Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout
the Commonwealth and all property other than
slaves shall be taxed in proportion to its value,
&C., and that ''the General assembly may levy a
tax on incomes, salaries and licenses" The con-
stitution no where gives the power to the legisla-
ture to authorize the County Court TO impose a
lax on any office. do not intend, however, 10
argue this question, which is before the Courts,
but merely TO say that if the law be unconsiitu-
tlonal deem il my right TO object to it. have
made my objections in the only proper form known
TO the laws; and. the Courts will pronounce their
judgment, which must be final If they decide
the law 10 be constitutional will pay the tax
if unconstitutional, hope there is no man in Au-
gusia who would desire to see the law enforced,
| If there be he has not inherited the principles of
our forefalhers, who resisted to the death what
they regarded as an unconstitutional and tyranni-
cal usurpat0n of power by their rulers. | am
moreover free 10 say that can see no just reason
why an enormous tax shall be imposed only upon
oNe office, whilst others equally valuable and de-
riv.Ng their support from the same sOurce-the
poke is ofthe peope-(as for example, the Clerks
office)- ARE exempted from similar tax; and
can perc, i've nothing criminal or improper in my
doing what every man in the community may do
if he thin..;s 1justice has been done him. Appeal
10 an impal ia tribunal to decide the question
whether he has been wrongfuly dealt by and in
this view an. happy to say that. in pIonuuncing
his opinion on thu subject, Judge Thompson took
occasion to state th't it was case proper for the
Court, and that thers was nothing improper or
censurable in the cours,a had pursued.
And In the spirit of this sentiment shus eX-
pressed by his Honor my recollection is distinct,
that my competitor, Mr.. Baylor, At one time con-
CURED; and in support of my stat ement refer
to the following note from James W, Calhoun
Esqr., gentleman well know to this, community
who was present at conversation between my
self and Mr. Baylor, concerning this tax.
Col NJ H. Nc Cue.
Dear Sr:-in answer to your request wishing
me to state to you the conversation between you
and Mr.. Baylor, in regard to the tax on the Sher-
if: Mr.. Baylor objected to the tax, and said if
he had been OH the Bench he would have voted
against it leaving the impression on my mind that
he was opposed to il altogether
Yours Respectfully.
JAS. w. CALHOON.
P. S.-Noiwithstandin my impressions did
not hear Mr.. Baylor say that it was unconslitu-
tiOnal.
1t is not incumbent on me to reconcile my COM
petitor'S present positions with his former decara-
tons or to explain or account for his strenuous ef
forts, at this time, TO make capital out of my re-
sistance to tax which had he voted at all, he
would have resisted by his vote, The peculiar
circumstances in which he now finds himself, and
ouer ,chich he has, of course, hat no control can
alone account for the dilemma in which the facts
place him.
am asked in the second place, whether Ihave
annually settled up and paid over the county
claims and the fees of the officers of the Courts
since 1916. | answer that have, within The
time specified, paid all county claims demanded
of me by the holders of such claims.-I suppose
however that "Many Voters" want light upon the
settlement | had some months ago with thecounty,
and that is what they are driving at by this ques
ton. For their information and satisfaction, and
to relieve the painful anxiety they feel lest some
of their ''charges" may "tend to injure" me sin
the approaching election" here publish letter,
received at its date, from Col. Hartman the Com
monweaIth's attorney. hope this letter will
prove balm of comfort, to "Many Voters" and
that it will satisfy them that our able Common
weallh's Attorney regarded the mode of settlement
adopted as the only one known to the law and ne
cessary even tho not dollar had been due from
me at the time Probably that Jealous and vigi
liant officer does not know as much la,U as "Many
Voter ;" and hsleter may possibly not be entirely
satisfactory to them. But to the people Of the
county | submit it as full and complete answer
to "Many Voters" on this points, with the single
additional remark that the yearly balances in my
hands were always held subject to The orders of
the county court, and were paid over, with inte-
rest, when the amount was properly ascertained
and an authorized agent appointed TO receive them.
SrAUHroN, Oct. 18th 1854.
Col NJ IT. Nc Cue.
Dear Sr:-At your request, have no obec-
ton to state that the proceedings instituted against
several late High Sherils, of whom you were
Deputy, and against yourself as High Sheriff of
AUGUSTA, were instituted, in accordance with my
view of the law, in order to have the proper set
Elements made by the Court; and are by no means
proceedings 70 recover money.
In word, the object is to have settlement &C
cording to law (and this, think the only mode
prescribed by the code,) in order that the County
Court may be prepared to direct You as to the mode
in which they wish the money to be paid by you.
had assurances from you, which regarded as
certain and satisfactory. that the amount due on ac-
count of County levies would be paid by the Oc-
tober Court (the time mentioned,) and | took
this course simply to ascertain in legal and sat-
islactory manner at the October Court, how much
was due from you on that account.
There can be no final settlement with you, in
my opinion, in any other way than by this pro-
ceedng, and this, even if you had paid up every