The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-10-18
THE TAG-TAX.
Judge T.. III. Fifxhugh Decides Agains,
Its Legality.

Some time since bill was filed in Tho
Chancery Court OF the city OF Richmond
I by the Southern Fertilizing Company OF
Virginia, James w. Allison and +. b. Ad.
olson, under the firm and style OF Allison
& Addison, and a. S. Lee, charging
the Commissioner OF Agriculture, j. VI.
Blanton, with transcending the law in re-
qhiring manufacturers OF fertilizers to pay
five cents for each tag placed on bags OF
guano containing 200 pounds and less guam
tity OF guano.
After hearing argument in the case,
Judge +. III. Fitzhugh yesterday delivered
an able and elaborate opinion, in which,
after going over all the ground covered by
counsel, he closes by deciding the action Of
the Commissioner Illegal in the following
words:
There is no authority for this bold as
sumption OF power. The rules and regu-
lations the Commissioner il authorized to
make must be in subordination TO the stat
ute comforting his powers, aud must be
such only as will carry out the design and
intentions OF the act; and therefore they
must be consistent and harmonious in their
provisions with the spirit and policy OF the
act they are designed to enforce and fulfil.
But the charge in Rule No. is not only in
consistent with and repugnant to the act,
but is utterly subyersive OF that important
provision OF it which expressly declares that
the analysis ii is the duty Of the Commission
er to make shall be free Of expense. Where
the fertilizer is OF practical utility the
analysis is the only thing required OF the
Commissioner. and as he is not permitted
to make any charge for that. there is abSo-
lutely nothing left upon which the charge
in Rule No. , can rest. The respondent
further claims that the authority 10 adopt
rules and regulations TO carry out the pur-
poses, designs. and intentions OF said act
implies the power TO impose said charge
upon the said tags as one OF the means Of
enabling your respondent to discharge the
duties imposed upon him." But the an
swcr to that is that there is no room for
implication; the language OF the LeSisla-
turc is plain that the duty for which this
charge is made shall be without expense.
Besides, it is a well-Scttled rule OF law
that every charge upon the citizen must
be imposed by clear and unambigu0uS
language. Statutes which impose duty
upon the public will be critically con-
strucd with reference TO the particular
language in which they are expressed.
When there is any ambiguity found the
construction must be in favor Of the pub
lie. because it is 4 general rule that where
the public are to be charged with burden
the intention Of the Legislature to impose
that burden must he explicitly and dis
tinctly shown. FOX Us. Commonwealth,
1G Graf, 1O.) But in this case the inten-
tion Of the Legislature j. clear and explicit
that the charge shall not be made. The
Bill Of PightS (,ec section 8 Article I, OF
the Constitution OF this State declares that
men shall not he taxed without their own
consent Or that of their representatives.
(duly elected. 40 such consent exists
here.
In conclusion, | am Of opinion that The
claim OF the Commissioner is wholly I'M
warranted by law. That the charge OF five
cents for each tag, as made in said Rule
No. ,, is unequal, oppressive, and Illegal,
and therefore that the injunction hereto
fore granted in this cause must be per-
petuated. In the foregoing opinion ] do
not wish to be understood as intending &c
question the motives Of the Commissioner
Of Agriculture, or as hnputing to him any
intentional wrong. | have only expressed
my opinion OF the case on what | conceive
to be it, legal aspects.
Let the injunction be perpetuated.