Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1879-01-31
The Proposition to Tax the chesapeake
& Ohio &. z. Deed.

Il Ohio 4. K. Deed.
Last Tuesday night meeting was held
of the City Council, which had been called
at the instance of the Finance Committee
Messrs. Abby, Berkeley, Bumgardner.
Burke, Cochran, Crowle, Evans, Fultz
Gooch, Ransom and Todd we're present
President Fultz presiding and Maj. T. G.
Elder, the City Attorney. was in atten-
dance, the action about to be taken rem
dering the opinion of that officer neces
sary.
The case for consideration was the tax
to be placed on the deed of trust by the G.
& o. road when recorded in the Hastings
Court. The Clerk of the Hastings Court
had fixed the tax at 81, 600 in compliance
with the terms of the law in such cases,
and the charter of the city; that is he had
taxed the whole amount named in the
deed. But while this is the letter Of the
law the Attorney General and the Auditor
of the State have decided that the State
could only tax the value Of that much Of
the road lying witbing her limits and have
held that the legislature in passing the law
never contemplated such a case as the sale
of great Interstate railroad. Applying
this principle to StauIton her tax on the
deed would be very small and the Z. & o.
Co. had agreed to pay SIS as the amount.
The Finance Committee after consulta-
ton with City Attorney reported through
Mr.. Burke in favor Of accepting the COM
pany's proposition.
Mr.. Evans favored holding on to the
letter of the law which was plain enough,
at least until the question had been adju-
dicated. The Railroad corporations were
always in a hurry. The last time the c.
Il o. was in hurry it got the Council
called together at 9 o'clock in the morning
and got $500 worth of property from
Staunton on false pretences. Now Staun-
ton has chance to check them it ought
not b. allowed to slip. Ii there is any
doubt. in the matter the doubt should be
decided in favor of the city. The princi-
pie in the law applies as well to large
amount as to small one. Our City At
torney had not given written opinion as
yet and we were at liberty to proceed in
the direction we thought expedient. Mr..
E. said he wanted to see the railroad
tackled just once and let us us try wheth-
er they can always be successful-in get
ting property on false pretenses and every
thing else. Plenty of lawyers in Staunton
had taken cases with worse show than
this one, on contingent fees; let us try that
way.
Mr.. Burke said that Mr.. Evans ought to
be held largely responsible for the loss of
the So, 500, as he was on the committee at
that time as the record showed.
Mr.. Evans said he was on the commit
tee buC was absent, while Mr.. Burke was
also on the committee and was present and
he would like to know who was the most
responsible?
Mr.. Ransom said he, as counsel of the
G. so. r. R. Co., drew the deeds conveying
the property given by Staunton. He thought
it to the interest of the company not to in
scrt conditions, but had he seen what was
to be the result he should have drawn them
differently. He had since said, and so told
the officers of the road, that the Company
was dealing in bad faith with Staunton
unless it was the case that they were actu-
ally unable to comply with the terms on
which the gifts were made. But in the
matter now before the council. Mr.. Ran
son thought the question was simply
ond hnoinncc
could hardly be expected to be willing to
place ourselves in position to be laughed
at as parcel of old women. We should
either have to go into court claiming the
tax on the whole 100000 in the deed
which would be absurd. especially in view
of the decisions made by the Attorney
general and Auditor-or nothing.
Mr.. Gooch said he was willing to abide
by the official opinion of the City Attorney
when he heard it himself.
Maj. Elder then at the request OF the
Council gave his opinion. He said in a
common sense view of the matter it could
not be held as the intention of those who
enacted the law, to give every corporation
along the road tho right to tax the whole
value of the road. In the legal view the
reported decisions Of the Attorney Gener-
al that the State could only tax within her
jurisdiction would unquestionably also APP
ply to Staunton which could only tax
within it's Jurisdiction. The clerk of the
Court at Richmond had adopted that view.
Mr.. Evans-Staunton' charter gives it
right to tax, which Richmond's charter
does not give it. But where is the hurry?
Why not lay the motion on the table and
think over it? 1 move to lay it on the
table.
This motion was supported by Messrs
Crowle, Cochran, Evans and Gooch, but
was defeated.
The report of the committee accepting
the $75 proposition Of the Railway Co..
was then adopted, only Mr.. Evans dissent
ing, and with the SIT 900 vanishes lovely
new drop curtain for the theatre.
A GOOD BOTETOURT LAW FIRM.-The
attention of those of our readers who have
legal business or collections to make in
Botetourt county and the upper valley, is
called to the law card CT the Messrs Glas-
gov, of Fincastle, Va. This firm consists
of Mr.. VIM, A, Glasgow, an old LAWYER of