Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-04-30
LAND-GRABBERS'LAW
THE OtTCRY AGAINST 1T WILL
LEAD TO IT'S REPEAL.
THE COURSE OF THE BILL.
How the Change Was brought
AbOut-The Journal Record of Its
Passage Through the LegisIature-
Publication Orders to he Filed.

menced this week by the Roanoke syndi-
cate Of land-grabbers for the purpose of
acquiring twenty-seven pieces OF property
which is in default for taxes. The cutlery
against this delinquent land law has
grown steadily in volume, as the effect OF
its provisions has been more and more
felt throughout the State. There seems to
be little doubt that the next Legislature
will repeal the Objectionable features OF
the law, but in the mean while much harm
has been done. and much suffering has
been entailed upon individuals.
No better example was ever presented
of the unwisdom of trying experiments
in government and altering the laws
which ara working well enough for the
| people to live under II has furnished a
severe lesson to those who judge the cali
bre Of lawmakers by the amount Of
work they do. Now that the effect Of this
law for the purchase of delinquent land
has been felt TO such an extent, it may
not perhaps be inopportune to give a his
tory Of how it came to DE passed by the
Legislature
WHAT INDUCED THE CHANGE.
1t is well known that the people around
| Roanoke had been suffering from the ope-
| rdtlons OF syndicate, which took adVdn-
tage of the forty law, and ousted many
people from their homes The representa-
! tiVes from Roanoke, therefore began, as
soon as the Legislature convened, to in
troduce the bills 10 amend the law.
The first day of the session. Clayton of
Roanoke, introduced bill in the Senate
f.. 4.fNl
| of the Code (Which is the section pro-
viding for the purchase of delinquent
| lands). and the bill was referred to a
| special committee OF five. Senate Journal
page 80 Two days afterward. December
81, Hicks, Of Roanoke, introduced n sim
liar bill i'm the House. which was refer
red 10 committee. blouse Journal. page
~
But the special committee Of five had
already, on the second day Of the ses-
sion. reported to the Senate bill. instead
or Claytor's bill, Senate BIZ No. p which
was the bill finally enacted INTO law. (seu-
ate journal, page GGJ 1t passed the SEN
ate the next day by a recorded vote. not
senator present voting against IT. SEN
ate Journal, page ~ The bill went over
10 the House the following day SATURDAY..
ana. on motion Of Cooke, of Norfolk. was
placed on the calendar. blouse Journal.
page 10 Parker, OF Southampton. moved
To make IL a special order for Monday
following which was agreed To by "A re-
corded vote. blouse journal. page S0)
IL came up on that day, accordingly. but
was postponed till the day following.
when, on motion Of Winborne Of Rock
bridge, was committed to the Committee
on Courts Of Justice. blouse Journal,
page 93)
ORIGINAL OBJECT OF THE BILL.
So far, 50 good For if the bill had
passed the House In the shapa that If
passed the Senate there would have been
no more heard of il, except as q good law.
The object Of the bill thus far, was TO
be more !enient, or, rather, to require for
the benefit Of the delinquent, longer aud
Iuiler notice from the applicant. The
law, as it previously existed. required only
thirty days notice, and only To the per
son in whose name the property stood on
the handbook. The bill required four
months notice and not only to the per
son In whose name the property stood
on the handbook. but 10 every ono having
a legal or equitable interest i'm II
for ten years back. 1t will be seen that
50 far 1t was not proposed TO alter the
general framework Of The law. nor TO in
troduce any new feature by way OF ex-
pertinent.
In the House Committee on Courts of
Justice. however. the advocates Of re-
uenchment and reform changed the en-
TIRE character Of the bill by engrafting
upon II nine Words-viz., "Including |
penalty OF five dollars to the applicant" |
rms amendment, which was first placed |
al Slj. is said TO have been proposed bv |
Parker. Of Southampton. and was cham |
piOned by him and others. Anderson and |
allace. Of Richmond. fought the prOpo- |
sltiOn and succeeded in having the pen |
atty reduced from SIS 10 s..
NO RECORDED VOTE.
After being nearly two months in the
committee, during which time it is said |
to have been several times discussed and
given into the hands Of a subcommittee
TO put in shape, IL was reported fayorably |
10 the House. probably not by a unani-
nous vote. II came up on the LIST Of Feb
ruary I'm the shape OF substitute for the |
the Senate bill, which went to its third
reading and was Immediately passed, the
vote not being recorded Hicks. OF
Roanoke, made the formal motion TO
reconsider. and appears to have had
charge OF the bin on the floor of the !
House. III j.. page 40
The substitute went back to the Senate
and was referred to the special commit
tee Of five, who drew the original (S. j..
page 3s9, and was reported back and
agreed 10 with amendments. There was
no recorded vote. IS. j., page 4O9) The
House agreed to the Senate amendments,
and again there was no recorded vote
III. j., page 42i)
ON February 18th the Governor APP
proved the BILL along with eleven others
(Acts of Assembly. lS97-'9S, page 3D) And
so il became a law.