Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-12-18

Hon. j. N. Stubs Discusses the De-
Iinauent-Land Tax Act.

have read the timely illusions made
by the Dispatch Of late respecting the
Delinquent Iand-Tax Law" passed at
the last session Of the Legislature.
This Iaw is very Objectionable, and is
working in our section the greatest hard
ships and downright injustice. I had
hoped the Court Of Appeals would be able
70 give the unfortunate owners or delin-
ouent lands some relief from 1.-THE Tax
Title Company" but all efforts in that
direction have failed so far. IT'S true the
last Legislature has been severely crit-
cised in their acts OF commission and
omission Retrenchment and reform were
discussed in every phase. and while you
can only attribute the very highest and
purest motives to the Legislature, yet
mistakes were made. and the most glarng
mistake was the passage Of the "Delin-
quent Tax Law"
In my county 1.-THE Tax Title Company"
has commenced it's operations. and al
ready over one hundred and fifty appli-
cations have been filed. The parcels of
land range from two acres to 200 acres;
the amount of delinquent taxes for the
year range from 20 cents to 50 or g. When
the parcels of land we're purchased by
the Auditor for the delinquent taxes FOR
that year. the Commonwealth did not
have the various parcels transferred TO
the state but they remained on the land
books in the name of the same owners,
and the following year the tax bills were
made out against the same owners and,
I'm some instances-in many instances In
my county-the widows and heirs-at-law
Of the owners paid the tax bills, and for
ten years past have continued 10 pay all
taxes against said land. Now "The Tax
Title Company is permitted to come and
flo applications. when only one years
taxes are due: in the mean time 1t may be
that these parcels of land have changed
hands What is the position in which Vir-
ginia puts herself towards her citizens?
Let us see. b owes 81 taxes for the year
1898 on fifty acres Of land; the State says
TO b II 1.-THE Tax Title Company" has
filed an application, before you can get
your land you must pay the taxes for the
year 1893, with per cent. added; you
must pay Sheriffs and Clerks fees. and
then Mr.. b, you must pay s. TO 1.-THE Tax
Title Company" For what? 1t is all right
for 3 to pay the tax and interest and
costs, but why must = pay S. to 1.-THE Tax
Title Company? If II il right for Vir-
ginia to require the s., why doesn't Vir-
ginia take the IS and put 1t in her empty
Treasury? Or has Virginia permitted this
company to squeeze out OF the landowner
IS because she does not want to grab"
herself, but is willing for some one else
to do IL? The consequence is Virginia
gets 81 tax and G per cent for five years
total, s1.30-and at a cost to the owner OF
about 80. Why did not the owner pay the
tax on his land, and not permit II to be
returned delinquent. He ought to have
paid II. He did wrong Virginia says,
because you did wrong, will make you
pay IS to The Tax Title Company as a
Does this reasoning sound
Virginian? Is this old-style Virginian, or
Is il that Virginia shall have her taxes,
regardless Of hardship and injustice to
her own people?'
Again, II the owner cannot raise s., 100
acres OF land is transferred to 1.-THE Tax
Title Company" IL that a fair conside
ration to pass title TO this land? Sales OF
real estate by commissions of the court
to pay off liens have failed to be con-
frmed because OF inadequacy of price; /
upset bids have been put I'm 10 prevent
sacrifice Of property. Under this law there
Is no remedy; no inadequacy Of price; no
upset bid. The delinquent can't rent out !
the land, or sell enough acres TO pay |
taxes and costs, nor can he sell tho TIM |
Der on the land TO pay the taxes. The |
costs and s. must be paid by the owner. |
whether the tax be 81 or $500.
The law of 1928 was not the law when ]
and was returned delinquent. This law is |
in its character. Query: Is |
{ such a retrospective law as the Legis-
ature can pass? Should not the law at
he time of the return OF the land as
delinquent be enforced to collect the
axes? The last Legislature on the 18th of
December. 1897, suspended the act OF
20, 1896, in relation to delinquent
ands &C., for a period Of sixty days;
'lde Acts of Assembly. 1878, chapter z,
age Z.
Before the sixty days expired the pres
mt law was passed. amending the very
aw that was suspended. The law was ap-
Jroved February II. 1898. Can the Legis-
ature amend law unless that law is
peraave at the time the amendment is
pproved? Some OF the advocates OF this
aw say that the owners Of the lands will
ay the s. rather than lose their lands
Ies, and 1.-THE Tax Title Company" reall
zes s. in each case-money taken from
ne citizen and given TO another without
ny consideration whatever. An enormous
ne for non-payment of taxes! The Con-
titution of Virginia, Article l., section II.
rotects criminals against excessive
ALL" excessive fines" and "cruel and
nusual punishment" This law-civil
iw-imposes an excessive fine. When
The Tax Title Company" files the appli-
alton, then the controversy is between
he company and the landowner; then
oes not the 18th section OF Article l. Of
he Constitution OF Virginia become
hiding. and can the Legislature prevent
he landowner from having the benefit of
he section?
Section Is Is: THAT In controversies re-
pecting property. and In suits between
IAN and man. the trial by jury Is pre-
cradle to any other. and ought to be held
acred.'
This is clearly a controversy respecting
Some Of your readers may say that I
. raising all Of these questions and try
~ 10 prevent Virginia from receiving
err taxes. am not. The taxes are liens
n the real estate, and prior liens. and
lust be paid. am hoping TO save the IS
'om the pockets OF the landowners.
Our people are very much exercised over
iis law. A few blame the Governor for
pproving II; all blame the Legislature
DR. passing II: all accept the rulings OF
he Court Of Appeals. Of course. so far.
he Governor naturally could not do any,
ling but approve. II was not one Of
lose acts that he ought to have vetoed.
FELL. the Legislature did make a blunder.
nd the courts win be appealed to again
sfore our people give up entirely.