The Norfolk post. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 1865-1866, 1865-07-06
THE LICENSE CONTROVERSY.

Objection is made by Mr.. Porter, the
Prosecuting Attorney in the tax suits, to
our article published few days since,
under the title of Civil Us. Military law.
We did not expect to please everybody
when the aforesaid article was prepared,
and particularly the attorney for the
prosecution, who undoubtedly has deep
interest In the success of his prosecution.
There may be many errors in that article
as alleged by our learned friend Mr.. Por.
ter, and we will not contend that 1t was
entirely free from criticism in that re-
epect; but we contend that the principle
Is the same, nevertheless. It is sought
to force the people to pay for something
taey never received from the party clai a.
Ing the payment, but which they did re-
i've from another party. What service
did the State perform for the people OF
this city during the year it was under
martial law, and what protection did
toe nominal State authorities afford this
people? What protection could they af-
ford them? We view this matter in the
light of contract, to which there were
two parties, as there must necessarily be
to all contracts. The party of the first
part-the State-having failed in its per-
Torrance, no matter from what cause,
the other is by that failure forever re-
leased from all liability; therefore
the State cannot claim from its in
habitants payment for obligations it
failed to perform, though it might
be permitted to plead in abatement
of damages, that it was prevented
by higher authority or by force from
performing such contract. We are no
lawyer, but we imagine this is pretty
good logic if it be not law. We do not
question the fact stated by Mr.. Porter,
but freely admit our error that the ques-
tion is in regard to State, and not city
taxes. We do not know whether Gene
raj Butler ever collected any State taxes
or not, but we oknow that he did collect
taxes for the city of Norfolk, andexpend-
ed them for the benefit Of the corpora
ton. Its streets had to be cleaned,
schools kept in operation, public build
ings taken care of, prisons keptin order,
the poor fed, and thousand'other things
that enter into the responsibilities of
every city, and for these purposes the
money was expended. But this is not
the controversy. Weaffirm that. neither
State nor city have any right to collect
these taxes, and that the enforcement of
their payment by summary process will
be a great wrong and previously OPP
pressive to the people. We repeat that
such vexatious litigation should not be
commenced, as it will open the door to a
thousand other similar claims against
private parties who acted under military
authority If these confiscated taxes,
whether paid or forgiven, be forcibly
collected, then everything that has been
confis,ated or used by right of war, or as
a military necessity, will be claimed, and
the claims allowed by the courts, and
payment enforced, not against the gov
eminent but against its agents. Such
litigation we hold to be unjust and mis-
chievous, and trust it may be stopped
right here.
We have no disposition to find fault
with Mr.. Porter, WHO'S only performing
his duties in his usual able manner, and,
if in his argument before jury, he can
convince them of the justice fhis cause,
weshall give him full credit. Itisneither
our duty nor our profession to argue legal
points, and for the present we beg to dis.
miss the matter.