Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-02-09
The HIOffet Liquor Law.

The Court of Appeals of Virginia on Thurs
dsy decided the Helfrich liquor case.
The defendant was indicted 10 the Hastings
Court of The city Of Richmond for wi!fully fail
ing to register drink of matlquor as required
by the act of March 80. 1877. known as the
Moffett register law. Ho was convicted and
sentenced to pay foe.
He applied to the Court of Appeals for q
writ of error to the judgment OF the Huslogs
Court of Richmond, which was awarded. The
main ground of Objection TO the indictment
| was founded upon the alleged unconstitutional
| ity of so much of the act of March 30, 1877, as
| made it The duty OF the Auditor to supply the
cities of the Commonwealth first with the Moi
felt register 1t appeared on the trial that the
Moffett registers were frat placed 10 the bar
rooms of Richmond On the llth of September,
1877; that at tho time of the finding of the
| Indictment Ion the 25th Of September) not
| more than half of the cities and towns and none
of the couuties had been supplied with the re-.
eister. 1t was Insisted that this was invidious
and unjust discrimination against the city deal
ers 10 liquors; that the effect was to impose
upon them new and burdensome system of
taxation, from which the country dealers were
long time exempt, and thus to violate the
rule of the Constitution which secures unitor.
nifty and equality Of taxation upon oil engaged
in the Same business.
The Court of Appsals held that the question
was q very grave one, for if the objec'
ton was we'll trken the State has DO just
title to dollar of the revenues derived
from the Moffett system, and may be called
upon to refund at the suit OF those who
have been subjected to the tax; that to de.
Glars q legislative enactment void is judi
cial function of the most delicate character,
never to be exercised except upon the
clearest conviction Of the unconstitutional
ty of law; that the Legislature possesses
the absolute and supreme power Of taxation
except so far as may be interdicted by the
mandates and restrictions Of the State and
Federal Constitutions, and that the provision
ia the State Constitution requiring taxation to
be equal and uniform only applies to the taxa.
tion of property, and has nc reference to tax
upon licenses and privileges. AS to these lat.
ter the rule is only to be applied so far as prac'
ticablc.
Tested by these principles. the Court held
that the present case was of easy solution. 10
the nature of things it was impossible that the
register could be put in operation all over the
oloSS Su S'CLy Shyf soWbS ouo oouoy NV Wv
sametime. Necessarily, there would DO some
delay, due to defects 10 the registers, the ignor
ance or forgetfulnees of commissioners, and to
other causes not foreseen or capable Of being
provided against in giving effect to new sys-
TEN of taxation. Consequently there must be
some period during which liquor dealers 10
different parts Of the State would operate 10:
der different systems of taxation. When novel
and important revenue system, which is but 40
experiment, is adopted aod put into operation,
q large discretion must be left to the legislative
department 10 respect to the mode and manner
of the assessment and collection of the tax. IF
the delay 10 the complete enforcement Of the
law is not unressonable-ifi it be such % might
DO fairly expected under all the circumstances
the court cannot interfere with it, because they
may think some other more satisfactory and
expeditions means might have been adopted. |
1t is conceded that the present statute violates