Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-03-13
no DISTRICT TAXES.
supreme Court Holds There Is No Law
for Such LeYleS for Schools.
, VERY INTERESTING OPINION
An Important Decision I'm the Case
o,, the II. & A. Halfway Against inc
"A. Patterson Tobacco COMPANY
rhe constitution Upheld.

r,s caae OF the New York, Philadelphia
"a Norfolk Railroad Company against
re Ro,sd OF Supervisors Of the county
:, Northampton was decided In the su-
.-.r,e Court Of Appeals yesterday, the
,n,non. which was prepared ana deliver
- bv Judge Cardwell. being one OF
go, importance TO the railroads and the
s,rle generally OF the State. The ques-
~ involved was the power OF the APP
,-.,eo the Board Of Supervisors, to tax
~. onnellant company for district-school
Illnesses. The effect Of the courts de-
s,s,on "a 20 declare that the county SUPER
,.,sors cannot lay such a tax upon rail-
,osa canal, telegraph, and telephone
oo,nnanles for school purposes under the
twisting statutory laws. The Judge de-
uverlng the opinion OF the court holds
that the remedy necessary TO do this lies
nolv in the Legislature Of the State.
The case Is interesting throughout, and
Is OF general Importance. At meeting
NJ the Board OF Supervisors OF NorthampA
ION county. held September 13. 1892, il was
ordered that a tax of 10 cents be levied
upon every 500 Of the assessed value OF
all property. real and personal. and in
come including a like tax upon all pro
perty. real and personal. Of the New
York. philadelphia and Norfolk railroad
an Franktown District, Eastyille School
District, and Capeville District. the FUNDS
therefiom, when collected, TO be applied
10 the respective school districts Tor the
year 1892 In accordance with the ABOVE
action the railroad WAS presented with
tax bill amounting TO Sl.O0S4i, when was
10 county and district school taxes. Ihe
con- pany paid the county tax, but de-
rlined TO pay the district tax, which
amounted 70 s7902l, with the penalty OF
per cent added.
INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS.
The Treasurer Of Northampton threat
ened TO levy upon the property OF the
railroad for the amount, and the company
filed It's bill in the Circuit Court Of that
county TO enjoin and restrain the collee-
ton OF the tax on the ground that there
was no authority under the law then in
force to tax railroads by a levy Of the
Supervisors for district school purposes,
and on the further ground that If there
was such right there was no machinery
10 carry II into effect, as the Board OF
Public Works assessment for taxation is
for the county as a whole. and not by
Districts and that there is no way TO
apporton tax for district school purposes
among the districts according to the
assessed value OF the corporate property
in each. The injunction asked for was
awarded, but the Circuit Court subse-
uuently dissolved the injunction and dis
missed the bill. 1t was from this decree
that an appeal was allowed TO the SUI
preme Court. The answer OF the Board
OF Supervisors. as well as that OF the
Treasurer of Northampton county. admits
the correctness OF the allegation of the
bill of the plaintiff company as TO the as
Ressment and levy of the tax, but denies
that the board had no power TO levy the
tax complained Of
The opinion says in this connections: ut
will be observed from the tax bill made
out against the appellant company that
its property IL taxed as though IL were
equally distributed In locality in all the
districts in Northampton county, while
its property could be taxed for district
school purposes. IL at all, in the district
IN which II Is located. 1t Is admitted in
TIE argument that the greater portion
OF the property of the railroad company
is situated I'm the Capeville District. and
that the roadway and track assessed by
ne Board of Public Works at $4,000 per
nile is the only property Of the company
situated in the other two districts, hence
the only property OF the company that
could rightly be assessed with district
school tax in the districts OF Franktown
and Eastville Is the roadbed and track
proper, while. as before stated, the levy
Is upon the entire property OF the rail-
road company In the county OF Northamp-
ton, as II II was equally distributed In
Ill three OF the districts"
REFERRED TO THE CONSTITUTION.
The court briefly refers to section S
Of the Constitution OF Virginia, which
provides that each county and public
school district may raise additional sums
by tax on property for the support Of
public free schools. etc, and the opinion
goes on TO say: 1.-THE funds raised for
district-school purposes are, as provided
by law, used for building school-houses
and equlppng the same in the respective
districts. and hence each taxpayer be-
comes interested In the proper appli-
cation OF this fund, as one district may.
by the tax levied in that district In any
one year. provide ample funds for this
purpose, 50 that no tax is required the
following year, and this was doubtless
IN View when the trainers OF the con-
eututi0nal provisions referred 10 stipu-
lated that the fund raised for district
school purposes should be kept within
ne district in which IL was raised
There is nothing 10 show what portion
or the TAX sought to be collected by the
Treasurer OF Northampton county is for
school purposes In any particular dis
uict, but IL Is levied as whole without
reference TO the locality OF the property
upon which It Is levied.
ANOTHER DIFFICULTY.
but. another difficulty stands In the
way OF the tax In question" says Judge
Cardwell in his able opinion. "and it
grows out OF the failure OF the act Of
the legislature TO provide for the proper
assessment and collection Of a tax
Tor alstrict-school purposes on the pro-
pe'ty OF railroad and canal companies"
The court refers 90 a number OF sections
or the Code bearing upon this question.
ana also cites several cases which have
heretofore arisen. One OF these Is the
case OF the Virginia and Tennessee Rail-
road Company vs. Washington county.
Judge Cardwell says: ITO meet the
dimcuities In the way OF reaching the
property OF railroad companies by taxa
Won for county purposes. as disclosed by
'hs decision. the Legislature passed an
hei authorizing the Board OF Supervisors
OF he respective counties TO levy tax
county purposes upon the properly
OF railroad companies. based upon the
ssses'ments OF the Board OF Public
Works and certified down to the board
q supervisors OF the several counties,
Ae's or 1890. page 50; and by the number
W' decisions following the passage OF
ms act u has been held that a levy
ior county purposes under the provisions
OF the act Is a valid levy. n Virginia, etc.
but IN none OF these cases was the ulies-
t.on here under consideration raised.
when the revisers OF laws In force In
~ came 70 this subject they adopted
IN section S2s substantially the provision