The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-03-16
tempting Manufacturers.

The petersburg MoV VI se'"'""s '''
ain another column we publish COM
uunicst;ou from an esteemed citizen, and
siso en- article from the Dispatch, In review
IN our editorial with reference to the ex-
sapption Of manufacturers plant. we
xolId say 10 our friends OF the DsSPd'cn
that their objections have been noted ana
considered by us, and that we VIII IN rev
days rive such answers as may DC necessary
Tijl then We crave their indulgence
We asked In good faith tho questions
which the Moa so courtcously refers to,
and we shall await the appearance Of the
.rswers TO them before expressing any
further opinion Of our own upon the points
Involved. VIC request the Nail TO con-
cider particularly the question whether The
CITY Council could exempt the capital or
n,ant OF Joux exrTii, who Is to begin BUSH
ness hereafter, and tax the plant or capital
Of Tow JOKES, who is already carrying on
The same business which JONI SMITH pro-
poses to carry on hereafter!
Again: A Richmond friend sends to III
che following note:
Editor Uspdtch. AS to power OF state
and CITY councils to exempt property from
taxa,jon. see Williamson Is. Massey, ~
<;rdt.. 1929, &c. Christian concurred IN al
said by Anderson. and Burks in the result
only, and Staples dissented. Qtod nofa.
March "a, 1853. I. IL. ;.
Yes; Judge CHRISTIAN and Judge An
PERSON were, we take II, on one SIDE ana
Judge BrRKs and Judge STABLES on the
other side OF The question Of the right OF
The state to exempt from taxation any
other property than IFS own bonds, land
such other property rs is described in Sec
ton Sd OF Article Y. o. the Constitution
We can very well understand that the con-
stltutional provisions which we quoted a
t]sy or two ago do not forbid The STATE
IN EXEMPT it, own bonds from taxation;
Int we do not consider the reasoning
al Judge ANDERSON In Williamson rs.
Massey conclusive OF the question now
under consideration. We do not know but
we guess that like unto ours was Judge
BrRKs's position. Anyhow, the only ques-
ton decided in that case was the right OF
the State to exempt lis own bonds from
taxation. All the rest OF Judge AMBER
SOUS opinion was oJiter dictam and obiter
dicta we cannot accept ms concluding such
y question as the one now before Us.
Again: Williamson rs. Massey was de-
clded several years ago. In view OF a re-
cent decision Of the Supreme Court oil The
United States, we are inclined to think
that our Court Of Appeals would not now
fthe same Judges we mean) say what it said
In Williamson rs. Massey The decision
al the Supreme Court Of the United States
10 which we refer was made about ting lst
Of January last. The General Assembly OF
West Virginia had by law authorized the
City Council OF Parkersburg 10 issue
the bonds of that city in the sum
total of say $4,000 to aid certain
persons in beginning and carrying
on manufacturing business which
IL was supposed would be Of much pecu-
mary advantage to the people there. The
Supreme Court OF the United States de
eided that persons and property could not
he taxed by city council for other than
public purposes, and that the city could
not be compelled to pay the bonds-or,
rather, we suppose, that the city had no
right to pay them, even II willingto do so.
We ask the attention OF c. l.. ;. and OF
the Nail TO this last-named case.