The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-03-29
REASON AND ORATORY
Leading Lights Of Virginia Bar.Attack
and Defend the Measure.
SENATORD DANIELS ARRAlGNMENT
DISPUTES tho Contention of the Com
,nonwca,.h That the Bill Carries
10 Appropriation Clause and
Holds That if This be Truc
the Whole Act Must Fall.


the Whole Act Must Fall.
The fate Of the Commissioner OF Val
uation Act is now in the hands OIL Ile
Supreme Court Of Appeals fof lour
hours yesterday the five distinguished
judges listened to argument pro ana con,
while the many listeners that CROWDED
the spacious room almost to suffocauon
were held almost spell bound by tne
reason and eloquence of some OF the lead
ing lights of the Virginia bar
The bill is scheduled as w -
Preston and Others, petitioners, VS.. ,.
B. Witt, Judge. and Robert V Mar!e' re-
spondents, on petition of writ OF pro-
hibition; w. T. Lambert vs.. w. II. sotliluii'
Sergeant. on a petition 1or hapeas GU.
nus: McMenamin and Others VS.. W. n.
Mann. Keeper of the Rolls, and J. H.
O'Bannon, Superintendent of Public PrlnI-
ing, on q petition for a writ OF manoa-
mus. and W. II. Sale VS.. A. X. 11anckel'
Judge on petition for a writ OF mahoa-
mus. The question involved in all OF
these cases is the constitutionality OF the
act of the last Legislature
The petitioners were recresen'ea os
Senator John ". Daniel. JuuSe
]. ID. Horslev, of Lynchburg; Col. T. l..
y,
dria: A 2. Thorn, of Norfolk: f. +.
Causey, of Hampton; Major Charles 5.
Stringfellow +. w. Christian and Sena-
tor b. B. Munford. Of this city
The courtroom was crowded almost 10
su1focation, and several ladies were pres
ent, who seemingly displayed as great
interest in the arguments as any OF Inc
noted barristcrs or others who were rs
tened TO attentively throughout the ses-
sion.
The court. after conclusion of the
argument. took the case under considera-
COZ. SMITH OPENS CASE.
Colonel Francis L. Smith opened the
case for the petitioner, A1r. Lambert.
aie reviewed the law, the reasons OF 1ts
making, its provisions and the ineVltaple
results Col. Smith related the occur
rences following the appointment OF Col.
Barley. commissioner Of valuation Tor
Alexandria, his demands on Mr.. Lambert
TO make a statement as TO the deposits
for certain depositor in his bank, which
on refusing TO do. MIR. Lambert was ar
rested, sentenced and imprisoned.
Colonel Smith declared that the law
was unconstitutional, because no recorded
vote had been taken. and was therefore,
imperative He stated that the law pro-
vided for appropriate ton from the pubnc
treasury and was inauisitorial.
LEGAL ACT, SAYS MONTAGUE.
Acknowledgement Montague followed
Colonel Smith His principal contention
was that the law was not demonstrations
al, That in no instance had any appro-
Driatien been made or provided 1or- ana
therefore no recorded vote was necessary.
He said:
1.-The evidence relied on 10y our oppo-
nents to show that the act. the vahdlty
of which is questioned, was not passed
IN the manner required by article 10, sec
ton II of the Constitution OF Virginia,
are the extracts from the Journals OF the
House of Delegates and or the senate,
which have been excepted to by counsel
for the Commonwealth as incompetent ID
show that any for,nality, which was nee
essary to the validity Of the act, was
omitted. The article just referred to pro-
vides that:
'Cn the passage of every act which inn
poses continues or reviVes any approprl-
alton of public or trust money or prop
erty, or releases or discharges or COM
.nutes any claim or demand of the state.
the vote shall be determined by ayes ana
noes and the names OF the persons voting
for oragainst same shall be entered on
the journals Of the respective houses. ana
3 majority Of all the members elected 10
the force of law.
I'VE have put in evidence the enrolled
BILL duly signed by the presiding officers
of the House and Senate. and approved
by the Governor. and submit to the court
without further comment or argument the
question whether the presumption as to
the act having been properly passed
which arises from what we have shown,
Is not conclusive. The journals of the
House and Senate are silent as to the
number of members, OF the respective bod
les who voted for. or against its passage.
are silent as TO whether the ayes or
noes We're called. and 1t would, we sub
init, be going very far to hold that the
burden was on the person claiming the
law to be valid to show afirmatively that
it was properly passed, after it had re-
ceived the sanction and approval OF
both houses of the Legislature and OF
the Governor. The statement in the res
olution passed by the Senate on the Mon
day following the passage Is excepted to,
and IS. we submit. not evidence Of any
fact therein stated"
CARTER HOLDS MEASURE JUST.
Mr. Hill Carter. of Richmond. followed
Mr.. Montague He stated taat he felt
as IL he would simply cover the ground
already gone over by his associate.
-I think" said Mr.. Carter. that this
law which has been so bitterly protested
against. does only. If its provisions are
followed out, make but each one bear his
share of the public burden. That, how
ever, is something with which this court
has nothing to do. That belonged to the
Legislature.
..The contention IS made by those who
oppose this act that the measure carries
with 1t. in two sections. an appropriation
OF public money. They ask that its
fourteen provisions be crushed on this
charge. j say that this charge IS not sus-
1ained The appropriation bills passed
by the last Legislature provide Tor tho
payment of pubic printing and other
debts
Appropriation does not mean" declared
Mr. Carter. "the liking the amour, that
s4ould be received. but In the actual dis
position OF funds. Every one knows the
difference between fixing the sum that q
person should get and his getting it,
Neither OF these acts declared Mr..
Carter. actually appropriutes and money
(Which Is exactly the same thing as to
impose o. make an appropriation OF
80, 2 -