The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1873-10-11
The Redemption of Lands Forfeited
to the State for Non Payment OF

The Redemption of Lands Forfeited
to the State for Non Payment of
Taxes.
In our last ssuc of August 3Oth, We
published letter from Comptroller
General Hoce to Hon. S. j.
Lee, in reference to the redemption of
lands sold for the payment of taxes, and
forfeited to the State for the want Of.
bidders, and remarked at the time that
it was the intention of Mr.. Lee to test
the soundncss of the Comptroller's at
titude on this subject in the Courts.
Our own views of the matter coincded
with those of lIr. Lee, but as the sub
Jcct was somewhat obscnred by the
amount OF legislation which has been
had on the tax question for the past four
years, we determined to postpone any
expression until we could embrace the
opportunity of critically cxamiaipg the
question. This we have done, and the
enquiry has satisfied us that the Comp
troller is wrong. In the first place, he
seems to labor under misapprchensio
of the law whcn he broadly asserts that
snch lands cannot be redeemed, and re
fcrs to section los Of the laws Of 1865,
alleged to have been amended by act
Of March y, 1872. and conirmatory of
his opinion. Now this section does
not recer to forfeited lands, and was
never legally amended by the act refer
rcd 10; and it is strange that Mr. IIogo
should so believe when he had before
him the Rcri=ed Statutes, in which this
very section. as well as others, of the
tax act OF 1868 were adopted and made
the law of the State by act OF February,
1872, and Of force by the provisions sf
The Constitution Art 3, Sec. %, Tit
FIX. Dep. aa
At the time Of the passage Of tho act
Of March r. 1872, no portion of the
tax act OF 1868 was OF force, as OF that
year, and therefore, " hen the sBegiAla
turo by Sec. I, of The former,
sought t to am:nd Sec. los
and other sections of the latter, it attem
pied 10 amend a statute that was no lon
gerthe law Of the State, h wing become
t. . .
nuIlItcd by tie re cpactmeni aud adop
tion of its provisions in.the Cole Of
Statute law, made the law Of the State
by the act and in the manner before sta.
ted The Revised Statutes cmboiy all
the State laws Of the State of force at
the time OF the final report of the Com
missioners, by virtue of A. A March 8.
1850, passed in pursuance of Art 5,
Sec 3 Of the State Cons;itutioa, The
next report vas made November rs,
l8T so that this Code contaiuS all the
law of n Statutory character ia force up
to that date, and made so by a. A.
! February, 1872, and in legal contempla
tion these Statutes arc to be consider
cd rs having been passed at the same time
In constructing revised Code OF laws
they are to be considered as contem
poraneous acts, parts of ono entire sys
TEN Of law. - LlIckwell on Tax Titles,
6l5. From and alter the re-cnuctment
and adoption Of the Revised Statutes,
tho tax act passed September 10, 1858,
ceased to exist as the law Of tie State,
but its provisions were made law by act
of February, 1872. Pamphlet acts,
1872, PIP. 81. 1t will be clearly per-
ceived, therefore, that the Legislature.
in Sec. | of the Act OF March ~, 1872
ignoranly amended an act that was not
of force, and that tho only law in rela-
tion to the assessmcut and collection of
taxes and redemption Of lands now of
force, is by virtue of The Act of Fcbrua
ry, 1872.
Mr., lioge refers to ihe Joint Rcsolu-
tions Of 1873 as OK plantory of the
Intention Of the Legislature, and as a
correct criterion of construction, but as
it IS the province Of the Courts, and not
the Legislature, to interpret laws, there
| is nothing in this view of the quos-
ton. ens..lts gE
L. The point seems, however, to be set
tied by the following citations from the
Revised Statutes and legal decisions of
the Courts
fThc County Auditor Fpr hisyDeputy
/ sh .lll n1tnnd III LII I'll 81 .A