The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-05-19

7E9-
I'M 10 1871
-. 10 =. ls S
..ss..s...s.s..1...-.-........sa....a.
Police Justice white snafaar,,,,. si,1y. a, J,
I,auyara-Tsr,a p.oeao.,s,.a.. -. -. ING
,r.,..,, xsras,,o., 1Ass sAiist
As ..e'.s ueus sz,. ss..st...s -.
ils announcement tnas the decision
wonia De rendered IN the case OF the city
o. hicnmend y ,ys; VIM. Green, Jas. Alfred
yones, h.. :. Daniel, ana otheTe, represent
totnd rg tn5 iaa is. pru,ssslon OF Klcnmond, &c.
s.aceeu large NUMBER OF members OF the
sle f9i.se ~ S9nrs yeseerciay it WIZ %
fbet T,s4;oa wv 1yAomalig ,conclse OPINION
~, t;a " aa.s aasaso tne proeeea-
rIeasrv V stateS I ounus m u tne aecislon are
etea11y st''eeu = q. ~ ls5
In PoI.ce 0oart.gitg Of Richmond rs.
m. Green, u. Alfred Jones, Is. T. Dam
tel, Jas. Lyons, ct at.' ysg3 ls
.Ihe deiendants IN this cause are charged
with conducting the business or profession
OF lawyers In the city aforesaid without IL
censes In violation of an ordinance passed
March, b, 1871, entitled m ordinance to
amend sections andc19 Of an ordinance
passed SMay II, 1870, concerning the levy.
ing Of taxes, and were summoned to- ap-;
pear before the Police Court; on the 18th
inst, to show causewhy they should not I've
fined as provided In the 10th section Of the
ordinance aforesaid. The said defendants
appeared in response to theisummons, and
moved that the proceeding against them be
quashed for the following reasons; 10 wit:
1st. That the City Council has no au-
thority to impose a tax on lawyers, mas
much as the State has taxed them, and de-
ciare1 that no additional tax shall be re-
quired. Gias
"a. That the tax imposed on lawyers Is
not in accordance with the Constitution OF
the State and charter OF the city of Rich
mond. ,,-,..s Ia ,isia , ,e-.sz.
3D.. That the Council has no authority to
prescribe penalty, other than distgesa or
lien, for the non-payment of the license tax,
I will consider these questions In their
order, and 2 .F-'s ~ z--t'. ~.
lSt. Has the Council the right to impose
license tax on lawyers when the State of
Virginia has taxed them, and declared that
no additional tax shall be required?
Under the charter of the city of Rich
mOnd the City Council has authority "to
raise annually, by taxes and assessments in
said city, such sums of money as they shall
deem necessary to defrny the expenses Of
the same, and In such manner as they shall
deem expedient, in accordance with the
laws of this State and the United States"
Sec. 69, CHAP. l0l, Acts 1S69L10.
Here Is general power given. to the
Council, to be applied by them in their
discretion to any subject OF taxation which
may not be taken from said power by the
superior authority OF the Legislature. I
do not think that the Legislature has with
drawn from the Council the power to tax
lawyers, but only intended by the 3Sth sec-
tion of chapter 174, acts OF Assembly of
1S69-'70, to provide that q license granted
to lawyers by the State in any county or.
corporation should authorize them to
practice laW.1n any other county or corpo-,
ration without any additional State license.
tls insisted by the distinguished counsel
for the defendants that lnasmuch as all Of
the courts OF the city except one are
State courts, that lawyers licensed by the
State have right to practice in them by
virtue OF said license, and no additional tax
can therefore be imposed on them by the
city. It is true that the courts are State
institutions. e., they are provided for
by the Constitution, and the judges are
elected by the Legislature, and paid out
of the treasury Of the State; but it is
also true that these courts are held In the
city of Richmond, and are, as is constitu-
tionally expressed, " for" the city, and the
parties defendant in this cause are protected
in their privileges by the city, and enjoy
all rights as citizens thereof, and are ex-
pected to contribute to the support of the
same. l do not think that the Legislature
intended to inhibit any county or corpora
ton from taxing lawyers for its own pur-
poses or support, because the courts gen.
orally are State courts. The 39th section of
the act OF Assembly last quoted provides
TINT no additional tax shall be imposed on
ply siclans, surgeons, and dentists: Whyy
because ed tneT m helu oi @ pLaetice Is esta1nsnsa
VI eon'loileu 1 ny 'ne S!ase teLtaiiiiy nos;
am cieariy0 0i 9plnlon tnae tne Gouncli
ol the .SIty Oh hlcnmohu mas autnoilGy 10
taA resldent lawyers, as wen Us physicians,
surgeons, Z, ana aeneises. ;.o =. -
"a. ls the nceIse TAX imposed on lawyers
6y the city OF klchmond IN accordance with
the Constitution OF the State and the char
ter OF the city! .'
From the evidence before me 1t appears
that the lawyers Oh tne clty are ciasslned,
aud taxed WIN ql1erent sums, ranging
from nVe 10 one hu1uIeu aOllaIs' Oy tne
FINANCE Soullli.tee VI tne oouncli, ih puI-
stance OF an ordnance concerning the levy,
Ing ot taxes, ana tnat the actlon OF salo
committee has not been ratified by the
Council. After a careful examination ol
the subject hold that none but uniform
and equal specific license tax can be I'M
imposed by committee OF the Council, but
only by the Council ltselt and by enter
ing the yeas and nays on the Journal" The
tax must be uniform and equal, because
the Constitution OF tne state demands It
section l, article III. lt must be specinG
license lax, because IL cannon" De reachee &c
under the Gd rdloreM system-section ~
City Charter. And it must be imposed Dy
the Council itself by vote OF: yeas ant