The Roanoke times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1897-1977, 1897-11-14
WAS THE COURT RIGHT

To the Editor of The Times: Sir-Nuch
has been said and written about the new
amendment TO section 666 of the Virginia
Code, upon which is said~to have been
based recent decision of..the State court
of appeals that authorizes and makes
valid and absolute any title to land re-
cured under the applications being so
rapidly filed in Roanoke. There is no
question but that if allowed to be per
fected as as ked these practical confisca-
tions of homes and similar real property
would work the most cruel hardships to
very many citizens who, in many cases,
could not raise the small sums necessary
tic protect their rights, even if they we're
to be notified of so harsh an attack But
1T is said no notice to them is require d
That the court of last resort of a State
should be familiar with it's statutes is he
yonh disrute-especially such AS were ex :.
pressly framed for rules of decisions and
to govern the construction of all other
statutes. Yet 1T now appears to be the
accepted custom OF courts to take no rog-
nizance OF even statute nor any other
matter vital to the controversy unless it
is by the litigants placed before the court,
even though it may be known 10 the
court as existing and affecting the case in
point. just SO technical are the courts
of to-day. Therefore we must assume
that our supreme court justices all knew
of the Virginia Code provision for the
construction of call statutes which was
expressly devised to govern "rules of do
cisions' as the title..of the chapter states,
and that section 4 distinctly and Ia
mandatory terms forbids the construct ton
of any statute to apply to any forfeiture
or penalty incurred before it berame law,
and that in deciding as they are said to
bava 6Ona that rho a m I'm
6b6 under which SO many thrifty specu-
lators seek TO wrest homes and property
from the people OF this city without Civ.
Ing them any reasonable chance to defend
their rights, the learned jurists ignored
those rules of decision merely because
neither party to the controversy had
thought TO especially claim it's protection.
and in SO doing they directly violated, SO
far ns they could, the constitutional pro.
vision forbiLdinG eX-post facto laws, as
seen in article "
Still we have the consolation of believ-
Ing that if the mptuary legislation en-
braced in that drastic measure can be
made to constitute punishment for for
FIXTURES and penalties incurred before
they were created and by others than
those to suffer, without any right of de-
tense tor those menaced, then it would
appear that at the next session of the leg
islature we can easily get law passed
suspending the operation of that act dur
ing the past two years and multiplying all
titles acquired under it. That is on ex-
act'y the same principle and would prob
ably even things up if we also required
all claimants OF such titles 10 reimburse
the actual owners for all expenses thus
caused them. But If the supreme court
decision reported was based upon for
fnittIr TINT Tins e,
became law. then it would sound much
more reasonable and just and would sus-
tain the rational assumption that this
law could not apply to any--tax or other
delinquency which occurred before it be-
came a law and that all property delin-
quent before that date is Governed by the
law in force when it.becamc delinuuent.
so it looks to an outsider, and | hone
the country is safe-likewise every
home.
Winter is fast approaching
ARTHUR NAVARRO