The Norfolk post. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 1865-1866, 1865-07-06
The Wurfolk 2ast.
THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1855.
THE PEOPLES COLUMN.
LETTER FROM MR.. PORTER.
To The Editor fine Norfolk Post:

| LETTER FROM NIX PORTER.
| To The Editor ofAe Norfolk Post:
NORFOLK, June Sd, 1895
have perused your editorial of this
morning, entitled "Civil Us. Military
| law" which embodies SO many errors
and misstatements that l feel con-
strained to respectfully solicit the use of
your columns to correct some of the
most important ones. While, ordinari-
ly, am exceedingly averse to having
my name appear in the newspapers as
the advocate or opponent of any given
subject, and especially to come in con-
| flict, or even seeming conflict with gen.
| tlemen of the press, still, as I have per-
sonal knowledge that the Post has
gravely erred, and being connected,
as prosecuting attorney, with the cases,
the contemplated trial of which is SO re.
pugnant to the Editor ofthe Post, can
see no Improperly in making denial
of the statements contained in the edi-
torial, over my own signature. If your
premises are right, your reasoning meets
with my approval on moral, if not on
legal. grounds.
Show me that you have stated facts in
your ticle, and will move the Court
or the dismissal of these license cases,
md will contend, in all sincerity, that it
is wong and impolitc for the Common
we"lth to prosecute them.
The editorial says:
"And now it is sought to
make them pay again these taxes which
they paid to the military and in the ex-
1enditure of which the city has been
benefited.
IF this be true, then I and others, and
especially myself, are doing wrong in
this matter, and justly obnoxious to Sc
we're censure.
But it is not true. In the first place,
it is not contemplated to recover any
taxes whatever through the prosecution
Of the cases in question. They do not
admit of any such result. It is the legal
duty of the Sergeant of the city to col
lect these license taxes, by distress, and
he has within few days received Or
ders from the proper State authorities ut
Richmond, to perform that duty. The
object of the prosecution is to recover
the penalty prescribed by law for doing
business without license. But even if
the object was, or could be, to recover
the taxes by the present prosecution,
your statement would be equally untrue
and inapplicable.
These license ta2ss were levied in be-
half OF the State mot the city, on the
Goth day of April, 1854, and nearly two
months before civilgovernment was sus-
pended in this city, and have never been
paid to any one, either civil or military
authority. ..
General Butler never collected them,
and, as far as L know, or have Informal
ton on the subject, never attempted to.
Hgain; "the rS(i authorities had hart
ly been reinstated by the withdrawal OF
the military Provost Marshals, when
proceedings wefe commenced against
these refusing taxpayers"
The facts are, that the civil authorities
were re-instated here about three weeks
since, and the proceedings against the
re-cusing taxpayers, were commenced
on the 9Th day of June, 1864, more than
year ago, and before the functions of
civil government in this city had been
suspended.
The suspension of civil government
occurred on the oath June, 1854, and there
has, of course, been no opportunity to
move the trial of these cases, until the
present time. The scope of your article
is that the civil authorize, are endeavor-
ing to re-coUect license taxes.
They have not, nor do not propose, to
do anything of the kind. But they do
claim the right to have these taxes paid
once--but only once. ~
When you show that they have been
paid to the military, it will be time
enough, I apprehend, to charge the civil
authorities with the endeavor to re.c0tiect
them, and time enough to "call upon
the President to interpose hiscauthOrity
and ga e the people from these acts Of
oppression and usurpation - at least. in
order to have His Excellency hear the
'"call," think it would be necessary to
impart to him facts instead of mis-
representations. There is much more
that might be said in reply to your ar
ticle, but it is not my design to argue
she rights of the Commonwealth in the
premises through the newspapers.
The trial of the cases will afford
more appropriate field for that purpose,
and will simply content myself by stat
ing that, in my humble Judgment, these
refusing taxpayers" have Just as much
right, no more, no less, to avoid the pay
ment of these license taxes to the State,
as they would to resist the payment Of
similartax to, and levied by the United
States at the same time.
Imake no sort of question that this
Editorial was written in good faith, and
under q misapprehension of the facts
and desire to have you regard this re-
ply as dictated by no unkind or improp-
.r motive. Very respectfully,
CHARLES II. PORTER.