Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1900-03-29
THE VALUATION ACT,

| v
AS stated In the kilograms from Rich.
moud in the Gazette yesterday, the
Court of Appeals that day heard areu-
ment in the case involving the consti-
trtionality Of the law creating the Office
of Commissioner OF Tax Valuation.
The style of the cause which was sc =
lec.ed to present to the court was Lam
bert vs.. w. H. Smith, City Sergeant Of
Alexandria. This was o petition for a
writ Cf habeas corpus. Mr.. Lambert,
the assistant cashier of Citizens Ma.
tionsl Bank, was served with a notice
by Mr.. Barley, the Commissioner OF
Valuation appointed for Alexandria, to
make returns of the accounts OF depOs-
itors. This the petitioner declined to
10 and was arrested. The case was
thus made up and went to the Court OF
Appeals.
The courtroom was crowded with
spectators anxious to hear the argument
in this celebrated case. The full court
sat 10 the case. Mr.. Lambert was repre-
sented by Col. F. L. Smith and Mr.. A.
| w. Armstrong, of Alexandra, and Sen
ator Daniel.
Col. Smith opened the argument for
the petitioner. He narrated the cir.
cumstances leading up to the arrest of
Mr.. Lambert. He declared that the
law was unconstitutional, because no
recorded vote had been taken, and was
therefore imperative. He stated that
the law provided for appropriation
from the public treasury, and was in.
quisitorial. Col. Smith made concise,
logical aud convincing argument. He
reviewed the law, the reasons of it's
making, it's provisions and the newt
able results. He also contended that
the powers of the bill allowed tres
pass of the federal constitution in that
the books of national banks were
made subject to the inquisitorisl pro
visions Of the measure. Col Smith
spoke just thirty minutes, leaving one
and half hOuis for Senator Daniel.
Col. Smith was followed by Attorney
| General Montague for the common
wealth. for the maintenance Of the
| law. He commended for the consli-
tutionality of the law aud based this
contention chiefly upon the claim that
he act does not in definite terms make
any appropriation, and therefore did
! not require q recorded vote. Should
I the court hold that the bill required
constitutional vote all of the act, the at
torney general contended, should not
therefore be declared void.
Mr.. Hill CArter,of Richmond, follow
, ed MIR. Montague on the same side. MIR.
Carter coDtended that all of the Incl.
dental expenses connected with the
com missioners' law were covered by
the general appropriation act of the last
legislature. This speaker drew q die
tinction between the meaning OF the
the word appropriation and fixing the
amount disposed of by the legislature
Mr.. Carter contended that this act made
40 appropriation in the sense that word
is used in the constitution.
Senator Daniel closed the argument
for the petitioners. He made what
many OF the ablest members of the
oar 10 Richmond pronounced to be-
one of the ablest presentations
OF case heard in this tribunal for
many yesrs. At times he INDUCED iu
fl ghts of Oratory. For the most part,
though, the Senator kept down to the
rigid plane OF argument. He not only
considere the legal and constitutional
objections to the act in question, but its
impolicy and injustice.
1T has been q fundamental principle |
perpetuated in the Virginia constitu. !
lOn," he said, "that a record shall be |
kept of all votes Oh appropriations |
made from public funds. This formal
ity was not observed, and in all the |
cases that have been cited in which |
courts have expunged the unconstitu-
tional sections, they have not cited one
IN which such course was pursued
where the fundamental principles have
been violated.
"Our constitution says that on the
passage of every act devisng or pro-
vidng for appropriations vote of ayes
and noes shall be taken and recorded
on the journals of each house.
ut is passing strange, l say, that our
friends cannot sac 10 the sections OF this
bill provisions for an appropriation,
where 1t specifically states that books
and printing were to be the property OF
the State, and in no sense the individu-
al property of the commissioner.
Senator Daniel carefully reviewed
the language of the act, and pointed
out instance after instance where APP
were 10 themselves pro-
vided for, though the word "appropris
ion" was not used. Would these
mere legislative fgureheads and dol
irums provide books for themselves
md pay the cost of the printing and
)ther necessities?" asked Senator
Daniel. San appropriation may be
mpied as we'll as expressed"
The cases reg irdiDg appropriations
,ited by the Commonwealth, Senator
Daniel stated, when rightly read and '
,,refully considered, sustained the pc
itioner's contention and not the Com
nonweal he.
Senator Daniel then cited case after c
,sse 10 which practically the same ex-
Or, ssiOns as found in the contested act
we're used, and In every case the courts
ave held that the bill In itself provid-
ID for an appropriation and evidence j
efficient to compel the auditor to draw
on the State for payment out
# the State funds of such salaries and
expenses as were provided for In the :
ct. He also pointed out that the pro.
'ision Of the act in requiring the re- y
unding of excess commissions to the
reasury must necessarily mean that an
appropriation had been provided for. !.
How" asked the Senator, "were they
0 refund something that they did not =
ct, or that no provision was made
nr fhann "a nafo IL thu nokario Of | v