The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-07-07
The cspitation-Tax and the Courts
The wig d saturday, - replying to


The capitation-Tax and the Courts.
THE wig d saturday, 10 replying 70
question pas 10 II by Us, says:
uwhy does not the Democratic party
.,..s.y sbs s.nestion az free ballot, as tine
,,eht nreservative Of all rights, 70 .ne
<o,,rfs' inetnad OF making II part OF = p's,,
form ,,pon which 70 90 before tne peop'e'
n The Democrats wanted to get ria o. an
,neon.titp,ional law, they would OF course
snnoal TO the courts. Sowouldt The nanone-
lies appeal to the courts u there were any
uncosstltutional law IN the way oil tneil
schemes or success. Their failure to appeal
70 the courts is evidence that they pave
themselves no faith in their declaration tns'
the poII.tax Is unconstitutional.
TIE Democrats are warning upon Tue
laws Of no state. Their declaration 10
favor OF free ballot and fair count Is IKE
their declaration 10 favor OF maintaining sue
supremacy of the Constitution. IL Is STU"
ply part Of their creed.
But here in Virginia the ResdlusleFs ue'
clare soIemnly 10 Convention that the poh'
tax restriction Is unconstitutional, ana YET
instead Of appealing to the Federal courts
and having II removed from the statute
book in short order, they go before the
voters and ask them to remove II
Doe the Wig want examples? The law
OF 1872 providing that coupons should not
ne received for taxes was unconstitutional.
Did the Democrats appeal to the people TO
renealitY Not bit OF 1t. They left the
question to the co irts; and II was not long
before a taxpayer was found who refused
10 respect such a law. In a moment, as II
were, the law ceased 10 be law IL De-
came dead letter. The court spoke, ana
the unconstitutional act OF Assembly was
no more.
So also as to the tax on coupons. The
courts abolished that tax peacefully ana
quietly. Nobody asked the voters to DO u.
So as TO the law taxing commercial travel
lers. So as TO numerous other laws in dlf'
ferent States of the Union, and touching
various subjects. The courts are always
relied upon 70 put an end to such laws.
The case is TOO plain for argument.
So also it would be with the law the Re-
adjuster platform speaks of II that law were
unconstitutional. The humbest voter could
have Il declared null and void.
The Chicago Times argues this question
80 ably and conclusively that we substitute
IFS better argument for our worse one. 1T
says:
.If the capitaiion-tax is contrary TO any
thing In the law OF the land 1t IS nudity,
and no action by the province OF Virginia
could make IL more 50. Nor is apy action
Of The province required TO determine that
tits a puIiity and estop lis execution. Any
citizen whose vote has been rejected Tor
non.payment OF the capitati0n'taX can FUR
nisb a case upon which a decision OF the
Snpreme Court would remove that provi
sion from the charter OF Virginia III It be
unconstitutional without any OF the
trouble and political worry which those
who are hostile to it seem to thiDk neces'
sary.
:. In view OF this fact, The prodigious i'm.
portance which the PfoletaIian spokesmen
attach TO what they style 'the one supreme
issue in the Virginia contest looks good
deal absurd. II, as they claim, the capita
tion-iax is 'unc0nstiluliOnal,' or contrary
TO fu00amcDIal cODultion VI iuC "" 6'H :"
charter prescribed in an act OF Congress- II
is mere rhetorical nonsense TO magnify q
proposition to erase ii from the charter by
action OF The province into cone OF the
Highest obligations which rest upon the
people OF the State If an unconstltu-
tional' capitation.taX fairly invites an out,
burst of sentiment Of such grand moral
proportions surely the Proletarian mo-
ralists 10 Virginia have sadly failed in their
duty by negleeting TO bring 1t before the
tribunal whose decision would put an end
to II summarily aud effectively.
"a political issue in Virginia upon the
question OF the cOnstilutiOnality' OF the
capitation-tax is an absurdIty. II is only
upon the ground that that clause in the
Virginia charter is not in conflict with the
higher law. but is itself valid law, that
question political can be raised by propo'
sutton 10 repeal IT. This would be ques'
ton not OF cOnstitutionality but OF pubic
policy--a question which would be within
The province OF The political people I'm Vir
glnia to deliberate upon and decide. where
as over the question OF constitutlonalilN
they have neither jurisdiction nor power