The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-12-09

| toS ny cieHeHt OF sovereignty. 1t Is a
mere local agency Of the State, having
no other powers than such as are clear
~ and Enthusiastically granted by the
iaw-making power. A doubtful cor
pofase power, 1t has been said, does
not exist; and when any power is grant
ca, and the mode of its exercise Is pres
crlbed. that mode must he strictly
pursued"
Again, 1T IS Il fundamental rule, chat
the powers of 4 municipal corporation
arc 70 be construed strictly, and, In any
case where the power TO tax is conferred
upon such corporation. u must not only
be clearly and Enthusiastically conferred,
blu. the prescribed mode Of exercising
ft must be strictly observed"
Whiting VS.. the Town of West Point,
SO Virginia, IA.
Minl;urn VS.. Laruc, 23 Howard 435.
Green vs.. Ward. 50 Virginia, 32i.
Roper. vs.. McWhorter. II Virginia, 214.
Richmond VS.. Daniel, II Grattan, ass.
First Dillon on Municipal Corpora
tions, 4th edition. section o.
Cooley on Taxation. chapter Q. page
200
There Is no note of dissent among she
authorities as 10 this rule, and 1t Is
universally enforced.
VIOLATES CHARTER.
rearing MS uocrine IN mind we see
| that the charter of the city OF Norfolk
does not cnumcral,e the specific sub
| jects Of license taxation as some char
tiers do. 1t does not give power, as the
| Lynchburg charter does, to impose a
| license tax upon any person or employ
| ment which the council may deem
proper, whd:her such person or employ
| ment be herein specially enumerated or
not, and whether any tax be imposed
by the State or not" Neither does 1t
give power to imposed license taxes upon
n long lie't of enumerated employments,
and in addition thereto. on "all other
business which cannot be reached by
the al valorem system under the pre-
! ceding section" as docs the Richmond
| charter.
| Instead of so doing, the Norfolk char
ter cnumenatcs no business for license
tax. but simply authorizes the levy of
taxes and assessments In accordance
with the laws OF the State"
| This being true, the conclusion to my
mind ia Irresistible, and free from
doubt. AS to license taxes, in my opin-
! ion, the city of Norfolk is governed by
| section 1912 of the Code. and has no
| legal authority to levy license .aXcs cX-
ccpt such as are authorized by that
| section.
| SoiNo II III llo4N+hL NIlNtDU ~ DS.
Q AS to the claim that the ordinance
violates the constitution of the United
! Stakes and the constitution of Virginia
| Certainly the questions involved "are
| among the most important that can
engage the attention of the judiciary"
as was said by counsel during the very
able and exhaustive arguments by
which the court has been 30 much aided
| in these cases. Because of the gravity
| OF these questions l am unwilling 80
! speak unadvisedly and hastily The
| courts will be found IN the future as in
the past firm in their adherence to our
written constitutions, and quick to re-
strain the slightest cncroachments upon
the liberty of the press. 1t must not he
forgotten, however, that this liberty
is like every other liberty with which
we are blessed, that is, II Is q liberty
regulated by law" II Is as hard to be-
iieve tina. the constitutional guarantees
were Intended 10 create n privileged
class. exempt from just burdens of tax
alton. rs Il is to believe that they were
intended 10 confer an unbridled license
to tr!tle with and for gain to destroy
the dearest rights OF other people. The
purpose was not 10 give sword to the
press TO enable Il to alta elk the innocent
and defCncelcss: but to provide Il shield
for its own protection against the cen
sorsh!p of tyranny. a weapon OF defense
against the control OF arbitrary power
zone of the great bulwarks of liberty"
am not prepared TO say whether such
license tax, reasonable In amount, i'm
posed by Legislative authority, could
be construed as violativc OF che consti-
tutional guarantees. i ia not necessary
for the determination of these cases that
! should express an opinion on this Ques-
| ton. AS the Stale of Virginia. imposes
no license tax on newspapers I am Of
the opinion that the city of Norfolk has
no legal authority under its charter to
do so. that therefore the ordinance to
this extent is invalid. T Will sign a
decree perpetunting the injunctions, with
costs In favor of the complainants.
ROE RT II. PRIGNTIS