The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-08-20
LAND GRABBERS'
LAW TO BE TESTED
Recent Decisions of the United States
Court on an important Point.
NORTH CAROLINA BOND CASES
.Judsc COTS Decisions Touch Strongly
on the Points That Will Prob
ably be Raised on the
Appeal.
NORTH CAROLINA BOND CASES

ably be Raised on the
Appeal.
The delinquent land tax law, or, as It
is commonly called, the "land-grabbers' "
act OF 1867 So and lSg1-'9S, may be vitality
affected by the recent decision Of Judge
Con in the United States Circuit Court
OF Appeals, in this city, in regard to the
validity Of laws passed By the Legisla-
ture of that state almost exactly the
same points being involved.
The cases deciGed by Judge Con were
The Board of Commissioners Of Stanley
County y. c., SIS. vs.. y. Coler < Co..
and the Board of Commissioners Of o.
ford y g., IS. Union Bank of Rich
mond. Va. The main point decided chat
certain laws passed by tho North Carolina
Legislature, authorizing the issue of bonds
10 all in the construction of railroads,
were null and void, because of failure
% observe the requirement of the state
Constitution that such laws shall be
read three times on three different days,
and agreed TO by each house. and the
yeas and nays on the second and third
readings shall DE entered on the journal
A VIRGINIA DECISION.
At Cupeper. Va. a few days ago, as
told i'm The Times, the mandamus case
of b. +. R0wles VS. W. r Coons c.er.;.
involving the coustitutionaiity Of what Is
known as the land-grabbers' act OF 1880
49, and l@7-9S was argued before Hon.
-. 4. Grims.ey. Judge OF this circuit bY
State Senator John H. Jefrics. represent
ing the petitioner, and William Justice.
of counsel for W. l.. Swan, on behalf OF
the clerk.
The Court held that the effect OF these
acts in reducing the rate Of interest
charged upon the taxes upon delinquent
lands which have been sold to the Com
mOnwealth. from ten 10 six ger cent.
was 20 release. discharge and commute
the claims and demands Of the
State. and not having received n record
cd vote I'm the House Of Delegates as re-
qulred by Article TO- Section IL. Of the
Constitution of Virginia, they are nope
ratiye and void.
10 is understood that an appeal will be
taken to tho Court OF Appeals Of Vir.
ginia.
The Times gave briefly the decisions Of
Judge Gof I'm the railroad bond cases on
the 18th instant. The printed copies are
now in hand. and the cases are Of such
grave Importance that further mention is
demanded.
STANLEY COUNTY CASE.
The two cases are very similar IN
many points. but the Board Of Supervisors
Of Stanley county VS.. w. VI. Coier & co.
was decided first and covers many fea-
lures Of the other.
The case came up on an appeal from
the Circuit Court of the United States
for the Western District Of North Caro-
lima az Charlotte
The facts briefly stated are that the
Yadkin Valley Railroad Company was
chartered IN 1870 10y an act OF the Legs
lature. and the charter was amended by
an act OF 1857. BY n vote the people of
Stanley county ordered a subscription OF
$4,000 10 the stock. and bonds 20 that
amount were delivered 90 the railroad
company and sold on the market For
four years the tax was regularly levied
and collected and the interest paid. The
tax FOR the fifth year was levied ana coll
lscted. but the commissioners OF the
county with certain taxpayers. enJOined
the county treasurer from paying the
interest and instituted proceedings I'm the
Superior Court Of the county 90 have the
bonds decreed invalid. The contention OF
the plaintiffs was that neither act OF the
Legislature authorizing the bond issue
was passed I'm compliance with article
.. section "A. OF the Constitution of North
Carolina. I'm that neither passed three
separate readings I'm the House OF KEEP
reeentatives ON three different days; and,
also because the yeas and nays were
not taken IN said house upon amy reading
OF said acts. and for the reason that the
yeas ana nays. II taken az all, were not
entered upon the Journal Of the mousse
upon any readings OF the bills.
THROUGH THE COURTS.
The Superior Court Of Stanley county
decreed that the bonds We're invalid and
perpetuated the injunction by Which the
treasurer was inhibited from paying the
interest then due on them. on appeal
the Supreme Court Of North Carolina af-
nrmed the ruling.
The suit under consideration was instl-
tinted bv ". ~ C0ler a. Co. Of New York
state. I'm the United Statc4 Circuit Court
az charlotte 10 secure rayment of interest
ON bonds held by them amounting 10 over
$1,000 The Circuit curt I'm comp lane
with the retition entered de rec sustain
ing the validity Of The ionds; enloined ihs
treasurer from using the interest money
for other purposes. ard appointed re-
ceiver 70 take charge Of the money. From
this the commissioners appealed.
In his decree Judge Cor quotes exten-
sively and with approval decisions OF ths
North Carolina Supr me Court in ths
cases OF Commissioners Of Stanley county
VS. Snaggs. and Bank vs.. Commissioners.
h.. rfannHHI rHHIH n
North Carolina decided that the legislation
under which the railroad aid bonds IN lt-
cation were issued was not valid because
the journals fail TO show the yeas and
NAYS on the second and third readings rs
REQUIRED by the state constitution; AMI
also that the Code Of North Carolina sec
ton 1896. authorizing County Commission
ers 70 sIbscr be stock 70 a railroad COM
pany when necessary 70 aid in the COM
petion Of a railroad did not include a rail-
road not begun 20 be built before the con
sttution OF that state was adopted.
NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION.
"No law shall be passed 20 raise money
on the credit OF the State. or 10 pldege
the faith OF the State. directly or lndi-
rectly for the payment Of any debt or 10
impose any tax upon the people Of the
State. or 10 allow counties. cities or
towns 20 DO so. unless the bills shall have
been read three separate times In each
house OF the General Assembly. and
passed three several readings. which
readings shall have been on three diff
ferent days. and agreed TO by each house.
respectively. and unless the yeas and
NAYS on the second and third reading of
the bin shall have been entered on the
Journal"
II Is decided that the Constitution does
not allow the certificate OF the presiding