The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-01-26
MUNICIPAL TAXATION.
RIGHT OF LYNCHBURG TO IMPOSE
CoLLATERAL-INHER TAN.
Deeision Of she Supreme Court OF APP
peais Bearing ON nm Impor.
tant Point.

LyNtftV~'y'
This case WAS decided in the Supreme
Court OF Appeals day before YESTERDAY
The Common Council OF the city o
Lynchburg imposed collateral-inheritanct
tax OF 5 per centum upon the real estate OF
Henry o. Sehoofield, deceased whici
nossed by his will TO his nephews and
nieces. and the widow of John L. Hum
nbreys. residing in that city. The value OF
this property was SS2,0Sl.'f, the tax upon
which was S4,l04.09. The collection OIL
this tax was stayed by injunction in the
Circuit Court Of the city of Lynchburg
At the November term. 1882, the Circuit
Court decided that $4,000 worth OF this
property being situated in the city OF Lynch
burg, the levy OF the tax upon this part
of the property was legal and authorized,
and illegal as TO the residue OF the propert.
situated outside OF Lynchburg. From thi.
decree an appeal was taken TO the Court oil
Appeals. This court held that there is nc
AUTHORITY in the charter OF the city OF
Lynchburg expressly eivento the common
Council TO lew q Observation-Disclosures tax,
although the subjects enumerated therein
are very numerous. The pretext for the
authority TO levy this tax Is based solely on
the SD section OF chapter "a OF the Code,
and an ordinance Of the Common Council
of the city. The said SD section is rs FOL
lows:
.it- 1.-THE council or board of trustees of any city
or town a. shall annually cause TO he made ur aud
entered on its tonrnsi an ace unt Of all sums law
fully chargeahle on the town. which ought 10 he
PAID witn one yep In 10 10 he r,;sed in
that way in addition to what may he received Tor
licenses and from other sources. The levy so or,
dered may be upon the male persons In TIE said
rS.sl
properly In the said town, and on such o'her SUD-
jec,s as may be at The time assessed win state
tfkes against persons residing in tie town.
The city ordinance followed the lcgisla-
tive enactment in the tax bill for the State.
Under the act OF March 2, 1854, section
10, which imposed tax upon collateral in
heritanccs, the right to levy this tax was
contested in the case OF Eyre rs. Jacob
ilith Gratt.) upon the ground that the tax
was violation OF the Constitution OF the
State, which provided for uniformity and
equality OF taxation. In that case t was
insisted that the provision for uniformity
and equality of taxation applied to every
species OF tax, and that this tax was tax
on property, and was violation OF the
Constitution OF the State, which provided
that all taxes should be equal and uniform:
and on the other hand 1t was contended
that this tax was not tax OH property, but
II tax on the transitus OF property.
This Court In that case said the Legisla-
ture possesses the full. absolute. sovereign
power OF taxation, except 80 far as il may
be surrendered TO the General Government,
be interdicted by the Constitution Of the
United States, or as it may be controlled
by the restrictions or mandates OF the Con-
stitution OF the State. And this power
should be upheld and sustained as essen
tial to the very existence of the govern
ment of the State, aud as providing the
means for yindicating her sovereign au-
thrity.-Providence Bank as. Billings, 4
Peters's r., 514; Weston Us. City Council
OF Charleston, 9 Peters, 40.
sITATAx On PROPERTY!
We do not 20 to our Constitution to see
what power OF taxation are given to the
Legislature, but 10 ascertain what restric-
tons aud limitations upon its general
powers are imposed by its provisions. If,
therefore, the power TO tax any subject
whatever Is not excluded by the terms of
the Constitution or by necessary implica-
ton. IL must exist in the Legislature, to be
exercised al the discretion OF that body rs
wisdom and proper sense of justice shall
direct. 1t Ia insisted that this is a tax on
property. and that ii is vi0lative OF the
Constitution, which declares that Ill taxa
ton shal. be equal and uniform through
out the Commonwealth. Ii this tax were
properly 20 be considered Il tax on pro.
perry there would he great force i'm this
argument. As the ordinary annual tax
Lad been assessed upon the decedent. this
would then appear 10 be second taxation.
But such, think. is not its true character.
IL cannot be regarded an proper tegdt
sense as q tar upon property
The intention OF the Legislature was
plainly to tax the transmission OF property
by devise or descent to collateral kindred.
i, is premium paid for the right enjoyed.
In the cases OF Miller Us. The Common
wealth, and Barrett rs. The Common
wealth, reported In 9th Gratian. all the
successive statutes upon the subject Of this
tax are col!ated and reviewed by Judge
Christian. who cites and approves Eyre rs.
Jacobs, Judge Moncure concuri'ing. who
had dissented in Eyre rs. Jacobs. and
while the court in this case were not unani-
NOUS, yet the question as 10 the State tax
upon collateral inheritances may be SAID TO
lie settled. And In later case OF Peters Us.
The City Of Lynchburg, Judge staples.
who had dissented I'm Miller Us. Common
wealth supra. comedies the complete power
of the Legislature OF the State to tax col
lateral inheritances. In this laSt-named
case. which Is reported In 10th Virginia,
1st HaDsbrough. and was decided
by an evenly divided court, this
question, which we are here called
TO consider, was under review in
this court. In that case a collateral
inheritance tax was assessed by the CITY OF
Lynchburg Of per centum on a legacy of
$4,000 bequeatbed TO Julia Tribe. In
that case the Circuit Court decided that the
city had the right to impose the tax. and
upon appeal al evenly divided court here
approved and affirmed the decree. JUDGE
Anderson, in mis- opinion in that case. said
there Is difference in the ordinances oS
the two Constitutions (of 1SJl-1SC9) on the
subject OF taxation. 1 will not saw that
they are In conflict. but the present Consti-
tuition ~ more explicit, and is not. think.
iiable to the doubtful construction on some
points which were given to the former
Constitution. Article 10, section /. de-
cIarcs that taxation, except a. Il levein- |
after provided. whether provided by State. |
county, or corporate bodies, SHALL be |
equal and uniform, and all property. both
real and personal, shall be taxed In propor-
ton to its value, TO be asceriained as i,re- |
'eribed by law. No one species OF proper
y from which n tax may be collected shall
be taxed higher than other speelss OF pro-
,erty OF eqIaI value; that the only excep.
IONS hereinafter provided are licenses and
ncomcs and all other business which can
ot be reached by The cd raLorem system:
bat the State Is not restricted IN the exer-
lse OF her power l,y the Constitution;
,st II Is q power inherent Ia the soyei.
gnty OF the STATE. II
But" says the learned Judge. oil h IA