The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-01-28
Shall the state Keep Money Belonging TO
o. hers

Editor tho Times: / was surprised. and
must say not a little ashamed, to see that
the House OF Delegates had passed, Oh
Monday. the bill from the Committee for
Courts of Justice absolutely inhibiting
the recovery by corporations Of the
moneys In the state treasury belonging
10 them and wrongfHlly collected by the
Secrefarv NJ the Commonwealth from
them as fees for charters granted by
the courts | do not think this bill should
become a law without public protest, and
while I had hoped some notice would
have beer taken Of IL In the press l
presume the facts have become so stale
thar ito moral obiquity is not recognized
Tho General Assembly, by act of Feb
ruarv m $50. imposed tax upon all
charters whether granted by the Legis-
iature or bv the courts acts 'S9, 30, p.
s9. This act was amended on February
Is. 1899 ACTS 81 20. D. so, and the tax
on court charters was omitted. l called
attention TO the omission and argued
I'm the Dispatch that, therefore, no tax
was required Of corporations chartered
bv tho courts. The Attorney General re-
piled ~ nv communication and contend
ed for the contrary view. Finally the
Supreme Court u Appeals decided that
the state had no right to the fees which
had been collected Of and were imposed
upon court charters. Combined Saw ana
planer Company vs.. tlOurnoy; 10 va.
rho cninion is able and unanswerable.
Meanwhile the state had, without war
rant of law. covered into her Treasury
some s6s 90 for such fees. Demands were
made by many OF the companies upon
the Secretary Of the Commonwealth that
those foes be refunded lie replied that
TIT h. "
and relief could be had only by act OF
Legislature.
IIpon the assembling Of this Legislature
several companies sought such relief, and
their bills. were referred 20 the Judiciary
Committee. That committee on Monday
last under "A suspension of the rules,
through its chairman, Mr. Saunders, re-
ported "A bill which iahibits the courts
and the Legislature from refundirg these
moneys.
am told that the claim is that the
words omitted from the act Of February
%. 1870. whereby court charters became
exempt. were so omitted by inadvertence
that the state cannot afford 10 refund
so large a sum OF money; that the state
created the companies and has the right
to keep the moneys of her creatures, etc
In answer 10 all this / need only say
that the Supreme Court has decided thai
the State had no right to collect these
moneys; therefore. she has pocketed, with
out law and without right, what be
longs to defenceless subjects; and 1t j
puerie to excuse n Legislature by sayins
it's inadvertence led 20 the mistake. II
order TO get this money rightlully a law
was essential. The State got the none,
without such law. and therefore u mes
the money wrongfuly. And for the Legs
lature to pass an act TO prohibit It's re
cOvery, or return. shows deplOraDle mora
obliQuity, to say the least
II the plea of poverty Is advanced, le
| the Legislature be manly enough to bel
| the companies not 10 ask for its re
turn, but otherwise let it be honest enough
to allow the companies 10 get back wha
| has been Wrested from them, and VIVA
! it keeps only upon the plea that ''mish
/ is right" JA--a.S' j. HAkklSON'