The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-02-04
n6.z2@k1z@f3
cZEER.12:E00T 0VIET7THE
6sssL E.r.:~ 6SnesA=s

sssT 49, GsSA z& = LIZ
it 50 rs to provide for more ample notice !
to landowners whose property is deiin-
quent
Senator Wickham argued that Judge
Mann's bill was far more rigorous than
the "Iand-grabbers' act which the COM
mittee's bill sought to soften. he could
not defend the Mann bill before his peo-
pie.
1.-The bill offered by Judge Mann, If en-
acted into law, will be like i cyclone COM
pared to the balmy breezes of May. that
swept away SO many members OF the last
General Assembly, said Mr. W1chham.
Senator Cogbill opposed the Mann Dill
He thought it was wrong In the prlnclpie
upon which it was based, and that was
the failure Of officers to perform their
duty He agreed with Mr.. Jeffries. that
the Mann act put premium upon 1allure
to collect taxes. for the five per cent.
unon the gross receipts from lands sold
for delinquent taxes might amount 10 q
handsome sum.
JUDGE AIAclN'S REPLY.
Senator Mann said he did not think
his bill was fully understood by those
who contended that it was more rigorous
than the law sought to be amended: he
stated that the committees SUBSTITUTE
did not differ from the present la" ex-
cent that it provided for a graded pen
alfy. required a deposit of Ten per cent
of the purchase price at the time the APP
plication is filed and provided for more
ample notice.
With reference to the costs under his
bill Senator Mann said they would De
very much less than the costs under the
committees bill, If the property IS re-
deemed. These costs would mot amount
ii
should be an order of publication. the
costs referred to by Mr.. Jeffries We're
what would be incurred If the land is
sold.
In the midst of his address Judge Mann
Welded to a snotion to adjourn.
A VETO MESSAGE.
The Governor sent to the Senate the
following veto message:
To the Senate of Virginia:
herewith return Senate bill NO. IA.
entitled an act ITO amend and re-enact
section o. of the Code of Virginia, relat-
ing to the appointment Of County Super
visor and Superintendents of the Poor
as to the county Of Tazewell." without
my approval.
This is a measure Of seemingly little
Importance, yet it involves a principe
Cor which I vetoed House bill NO. l'S.
relating to the appointment of assessor
of lands for the county of Warwick.
This measure changes the appointment OF
County Surveyor and Superintendent of
the Poor, and in my opinion is contrary
to good public policy. For this reason ana
also at the request Of the honorable rep
resentative from Tazewell, whose people
alone are. affected by the Immediate pro-
visions Of the bill, return the OH Will
out my approval.
Section So of the Code provides that
leach county court judge, upon the re-
commentator of the. Board of Super
yisors of his county, shall at the May
term of his court in the year 1881, ana
every fourth year thereafter. appoint, for
each county in which he holds his court,
one county surveyor and one Superin-
tendent of the Poor. Provided. that
such Judge may, if he thinks proper, re-
iect the recommendation: and unless the
Board Of Supervisors recommend othe:
| persons suitable in his opinion tor said
officers within thirty days after Their first
| recommendation has been rejected. he
shall ill the said Offices, or either OF
them, by his own appointment in term
| or vacation This bill amends this sec
| ton by providing that, the County
| Court of Tazewell county, or the Judge
] thereof in vacation, shall appoint Su-
/ perintendent of the Poor and a County
| Surveyor without the Recommendation OF
| the Board of Supervisors of said county
| of Tazewell.
| It is not necessary to enter into the
| discussion of the merits of the genera
| law or recount the reasons that Nigh,
/ be given. for or against this proposed
| special law l would only call attention
| to the ACCESSIBILITY OF having genera
! DAVIS on all such subjects. and OF ad
| herring strictly to them. The number OF
/ special acts which now cucumber oul
l statute books are strong arguments II
/ favor Of this principle. The constitution
| article 6, section 20. wisely provides II
| regard 10 cities that mo special act shall
! be passed except in cases when in the
| Judgment of the General Assembly the
4 object OF such act cannot be attained BY
4 general law.
4 of this clause of the Constitution do no,
/ apply to counties, and in fact to all sub
| iects of legislation, as we'll as to cities
/ SPECIAL ACTS.
/ An examination of our statute book:
| shows that the practice of passing spe
cial acts. when the general law cover:
all that should be embraced, is increas
] ing to an alarming extent, and feal
that much Of it has a demoralizing tend
4 ency.
1t may. not be inappropriate to call at
/ tention to the fact that I have before me
at this time q number Of bills granting
i special privileges and favors to severa
counties. and giving local authorities tn
4 right to create kalaries where they d.
4 not now exist and to increase tn
/ amounts now being paid to county ant
4 distinct officers. II It is best to creat
4 rev salaried positions. or to increase thu
4 bay OF those already in existence. gene
4 raj status shoald be passed on he sub
/ aect giving uniformity o: rompcnsat!o.
4 fhrouSaaout the State Wien the officer!