Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-05-06
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vIRciNiAM-PlLoT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of interest TO
Our People.
MORGAN ". COMMONWEALTH.

MORGAN v. COMMONWEALTH.
Supreme Court OF Appeals of Virginia,
March 10. 1900.
THE STATE MAY IMPOSE A L.
CENSE TAX ON PERSONS FOR
FISHING IN HER NAvIGABLE
WATERS PERSONS ENGAGED
IN A BUSINESS CHARGEABLE
WITH A LICENSE TAX MAY BE
DIVIDED INTO CLASSES. IF ALL
IN THE SAME CLASS ARE TAXED
ALIkE.-ACT 1878. PAGE 1854. I'M
POSING A LICENSE TAX FOR
FISHING IS VALID.
The case appears from the opinion of
the court.
The court says: The Iplaintiff in err
or was indicted, tried and Judgment
rendered against him in the County
Court of Mathews County. for catching
and taking fish in the waters of the
Commonwealth without first having OBJ
tained license, and paid the tax re-
qured by Act of Assembly, approved
March 3. 1898. Acts 1878. p. S64 To that
judgment this writ of error was award
ed.
The County Court has Jurisdiction to
indfct and try the plaintiff in error for
the alleged offense. This was prosecu-
ton for the violation of the revenue
laws of the State, and by Act of Assem-
bly, approved February 0, 1898. ii is
provided that the county and corpora
tion courts. police justices. and justi-
ces of the peace shall have concurrent
Jurisdictions. among other thing. of all
violations of the revenue laws of the
State
The Act of March 3, 1898, is not an ex
oCtA loN n o1ot-
act done before it's passage criminal
nor render any act punishable in 81
manner in which II was not punishable
when 1t was committed. Its provisions
relate wholly to the future. The fact
that the Indictment charges that the
accused was engaged In fishing without
paying the license tax before the Bird of
March. 1895, when the act went into
effect. as we'll as afterwards, does not
make the statute under which the in
dictment was made an ex post facto
law. That was the error Of the grand
jury and cannot prejudice the accused.
as no conviction can be had for any act
done before the enactment OF the
statute.
Neither is a license tax upon the re-
sidents Of the State, for the privilege OF
fishing In the waters belonging to the
State. in violation OF any provision of
the constitution Of the State, or of the
United States. The ravigable waters of
the State and the soil under them with
in its territorial limits are the property
of the State. for the benefit OF its own
people, and IL has a right to control
them as 1t sees proper: provided 1t does
not interfere with the authority granted
the United States to regulate CONNER
ce and navigation. If the State has the
right to require 4 license tax of mer-
chants and others engaging in business
upon their own capital, 1t certainly has
the right to require a license tax of
those who use the property OF the State
in carrying on their business. as do the
fishermen mentioned in the statute.
Neither is there anything in the OBJ
lection that the tax is not equal and
uniform. BY the provision of the
statute fishermen are divided into three
classes according to the depth OF the
water in which they fish, and the
amount of the tax Is graded according
ly. All in the same class are taxed alike.
Such n license tax is valid.
Neither Is it double taxation to re-
quire the accused to pay license tax
for the privilege of carrying on bust
ness and at the same time impose n tax
upon the property used by him in car
rying on the business. Attorneys at law,
physicians, and others pay license tax
es for the privilege of practicinG their
professions and conducting their bust
ileSS aliu lsHcS are t+t'Vtt-titt4-
property used by them in carrying on
their profession and business. This has
never been considered double taxation.
Neither is the license tax in question
in conflict with Art. x. sec. 4, of the
Constitution which provides for a
Incense tax on such business only as
cannot be reached by the ad valorem
system. Whether q business can or
cannot be reached by the ad valorem
system OF taxation Is primarily for the
Legislature. Its determination OF that
question will never be held erroneous
unless 1t is manifestly so. The business
of fishing in the waters owned by the
State Is no more within the reach OF
the ad valorem system than that Of an
itinerant peddler, n commission mer-
chant, sample merchant or junk dealer,
upon whom it has been held license
taxes can be imposed.
The title OF the act under consider
alton is not repugnant to sec. Is. Art
V. Of the Constitution. 1t has but one
object; that is clearly stated and is
sufficiently comprehensive to embrace
all the provisions contained in the act