Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-04-11
FRIDAY. APRIL IL, 1890.
Exempton-Once More.

We ore inclined 10 think that the Nor
folk Landmark did not read as carefully as
Il generally reads such articles our leading
editorial of the first of this month on the
subject Of exemptions allowable under the
State Constitution. We say this not that
our Norfolk contemporary has misststed
any of the facts mentioned in that article,
but for reasons which will presently ap-
pear.
A few days ago we said:
IF exemptions not specified in the Con-
stitution are constitutional despite the
plain language Of the Constitution TO the
contrary, then no future State convention
20 revise the Constitution need trouble it.
self 70 try TO provide for equal and uniform
taxation. the language Of the present Con-
stitution being entirely unambiguous.
Upon this little paragraph the Landmark
comments as follows,
1.-The practical difficulty is that the de-
cisiops of the Court of Appeals do not
agree with the views of the Dispatch That
Court holds that exemptions are constitu-
tional Neither the opinions of lawyers
nor editors have the effect of a decision of
decree of court--if they did tho Supreme
Court would he reversed every day of the
year. The question is simply what Is the
iawI"
We think that our Norfolk contemporary
is wrong in supposing that the Supreme
Court Of Appeals of Virginia has ever
formally decided the question which Is
involved in our little paragraph above
quoted. One Of the most distinguished
lawyers in Virginia tells us that there are
but two decisions of our Court of Appeals
$50 far as he recalls them directly IN
point--to wit, williamson rs. Massey, AT
ditor, 80 Graft. 237. and To,on Of DdnUiae
cs. Shelton and others, rs Va, 1875.
Was the question under consideration
really decided in either Of those cases ?
In the first Of them Judge MoNcURI did not
sit. In fact only four judges sat in that
case.
Judge ASDERsoy in his opinion contend
ed for the broad proposition that there was
no limit to the power of the Assembly to
grant exemptions. In that opinion Judge
CHRISTIAN cOncurred. Judge STAPLES dis
sesied, and Judge BURKs in brief state
ment, while concurring that the exemption
might be granted in the particular case,
and for the reasons he states, declined TO
express any opinion whether or not the
power of exemption under the Constitu-
tion is without limitation. and extends to
property generally within the uncontrolled
discretion of the Legislature "-saying
further. the question Is a very grave one,
and In the view | take, need not be decided
In the present case"
So that though the particular question
was decided, the general question we are
discussing was not decided. Judge Mon
CURE, we repeat, did not sit in the case;
Judge STABLES dissented; and Judge
BURKs concurred in deciding only the case
before the court. We do not recollect
exactly what thai question was; but If it
was whether the State could exempt her
bonds from taxation, a judge might well
decide il in the affirmative on the ground
that the Constitution provides that all
property used exclusively for State pur-
poses may be exempted.
We quote our awyer-correspondent:
So in the second case (To,cn Of DdnriHe
es. Shelton and oaers). Judge Moncure was
absent (see rs Virginia, page 3, after title
page, and the note: Judge Moncure did
not sit in any of the cases reported in this
volume. He died on the Path day of Au-
gust, A. ID. 1ss2'D Nor did Judge Staples
sit in this case, though his absence was not
noted by the reporter. / presume the
order-book of the Court of Appeals will
show the fact. There were out three
judges sitting in the case. Judge Ander-
son in his opinion reiterated his views ex-
pressed in the first case. and Judge Chris
tian concurred with him. Judge Burks
concurred in the results" only, and is
therefore not committed to the proposition
asserted by Judge Anderson, that the Legis-
lature had unlimited power to exempt. So
that in both of these cases the decision
that the Legislature was without restric-
ton in respect TO exemption was the deci-
sion of hco hedges only in court constitu-
tionally composed of five judges.