Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-04-06
Taxlnr Charters

In tho following communication Mir.
1ARE1soS discusses question winch we
have heretofore presented to our readers.
We are glad to have our opinion endorsed
by authority so good.
TO tie Editor OF De Dispatch;
In a late issue Of your paper the very i'm
portant statute passed by the last Leglsla-
ture and entitled IAN act TO require the
payment of fees on certain charters" Gp-
proved February 10, 1890, and the amenda-
tory act approved February q, 1890. were
discussed, | called TO see Colonel Bigger
this morning and learned that the Attor-
ney-General and Auditor had decided that
the conclusion you came TO was erroneous
and that tho fees would be required on
charters granted under section ll4o OF thS
Code as well as on charters passed by act OF
Assembly. This seems IN my opinion 10 DE
an improper construction Of the two acts.
The first act reads:
"Be 4, enac,ea ~ The General Assembly OF
Virginia, Tnat every charter OF mcorpora-
tion hereafter gr0nied imder De provisions Of
section ll45 Of he Cole Of VTg'nl1, ant et9y
act of Incorporation hereafter passed by the
General Assembly shall be. and continue
TO be. wholly imperative &c.
The amendntory act reads:
II. Be 4 enacted by The GmCrdl Assembly q
Virginia, That section l OF an act OF the
General Assembly. approved February 10,
1890, entitled an act % require the payment
OF fees on certain charters be amended and
Feenacted so as TO read as follows:
Section /. That every charter OF lncor.
poration hereafter passed by the General
Assembly shall be-" &C.; emitting the
italicized words in tho extract from
che first act as shove quoted. In
questionably the amended law does no
provide for any fees TO be charged upon
any charter qrGnlod under he pr0cislOns o.
section ll45 Of ne C0de--that Is, by the
courts-and 10 such conclusion you and
your correspondent came.
But Colonel Bigger tells me that as the
emendatory act did not change section OF
the original act the Attorney-General and
himself conclude otherwise. Section 2
reads as follows;
"Section 2. Such fec shall be paid into
the State Treasury and the fact of payment
ehall IN case ne charter lcGS qr0Hied under ne
provisions Of section 1l45 Of Gle Code Of Vlr-
ginid be certified &C.. leaving the words
applicable 20 charters granted by the
courts still in this section therefore. they
Say IL il TO be presumed that the omission
Of the italicized words from the aInenda-
tory act was q legislative lGpasS pc7saQe.
| cannot agrea IL IS-neYor presumabie
that Legislature can bo so careless rs 10
make such slip. The latter sections OF
the original act were directory, and OF
course dependent upon the first section.
II no fee was required by the first section
on court charters the WORDS in the second
section applicable thereto are mere surplus;
sage. by the very language Of the amended
act no fee IS required on such charters, and
Of course all provisions in the subsequent
sections based upon such requirement IN
the original act by its omission in the
amendment became imperative.
Moreover, there is good reason for sup
posing that such was the legislative intent.
The passage Of acts Of incorporation con.
pumes the greater part of the time Of the
Legislature. BY taxing all such acts aud
imposing no tax Of the sort upon court
charters there would be great inducement
given 20 persons desiring 10 form suct
companies to go into the courts for then
charters. thereby relieving the Legislature
Of much work and greatly leesening the OK
pense Of printing tho Acts Of Assembly.
Certainly this is. matter Of sufficient
gravity 10 command the attention at once
of the Acknowledgement.
Respectfully, JAMEs 7. HARRIsos.