The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-03-31
SATURDAY, MARCH 81. 1900.
4 VICIOUS Law rnRorrLED.

We are gr.aiied that 1f,e Court of Ap-
9cals has unanimously decided that the
7 act PASSED by the Legislature recently in
iValua1io act was not passed by con-.
<tituticnal majority and is, therefore. null
and void The enforcement Of this law
would have been contrary 20 public pol.
icy, would have worked a great hardship
1,pLn 1I.n1.y taxpayers, while encouraging
<otlse,.s to evade the Law, and might have
caused serious clashes between the Com
1nisAoDcrs of Valuation and those ciu-
oe,s q gainst whom the act was especially
Framed and directed.
81 The LAW was conceived in a wrong
spirit. We do not pretend to say that
che systom Of laying and collecting taxes
IN this State is by any means perfect.
Quite the contrary Our system is anti
quated and utterly unsuted to present
conditions. and 1t needs to be reformed.
But the Commissioners Of Valuation act
was not a step In that direction. So far.
from that the effect of the law would
f:are been simply 10 make taxation more
unequal and less uniform than ever. Nor
do we believe that anybody would have
1 been greatly benefited by the law except
The officers created under it The Com
u1iss:oners Of Revenue are clothed with
authority to assess every species of per-
.,cnal properly, and to say that these
Commissioners Of Valuation we're un-a
necessary to get this class of property
assessed, is 10 say that the Commission
ers Of Revenue will not do their duty.
The L,nchburg News, whose editor is a
distinguished member Of the Virginia
Senate points out that the Commission
ers Of Revenue have been doing this
work for one-tenth the pay that the Com
missioners Of Valuation were to receive,
and In fu1dner discussing the question
ri1e News says:
Last year. Tor instance, Commissioner.
Sslead, OF this city, as faithful and cour-
aEeous AN officer as there Is In the Com
monN-a1th, assessed approximately 81, co.,
Go Of personal property, for which Ser
NIce he received from the State slG0. II
The newly appointed Commissioner of
Valuation assesses the same amount OF
property here he will receive from the
STATE anu Null
still get his S16O; so that the State will
have TO pay, under this abominable bill.
52,lG0 for the same s><ryice that formerly
COST the people $3.50. And yet Captain
9,arl1s talks about government for the
peoY,le!" Not only that, hut last year
Commissioners of the Revenue assessed
$50. ZIG, 4sa OF tie property which the Parks
act turns over TO these Off ce-made agents
of the State. at a cost to the taxpayers
mn 4s,, o>l-
Commissioners Of Nalua don, for the very
; same work, viii cost the State SO, 0S.2l.
) in addition to this the Commissioners of
the Revenue will. still receive their fees
OF S2.5o0. thus costing the taxpayers OF
n Virginia S27.6OS.ol for work that last year.
cost but so5f,l.t In other words, the Parks
valuation act creates about $50 new Off
.dals. in NO sense or degree responsible
10 the people, to do the same work that
dts author admits the Commissioners OF
the Revenue already had 1.-The power and
aurnority 10 do, and pays fo; dt at the
rate of about IA per cent. as against
4 IA per cent. paid last yca-. That is to
say, the new Stale agent in I-ynchburg
alone Will get nearly as much pay under
the Parks bill as all the Commissioners
OF Rcs.cnre in Virginia, put together, re-
xse3Iea last year for assessing the same
4sa.ss OF property In every CRY, town and
Il county Of the STATE! Finally, should
4 these new officials increase the taxable
4 returns OF the State by the sum Of five
millions OF dollars {s50oa. n0Q) the State
i uoss2d get but $4,000 of additional revenue,
81 HIe the actual increased cost of coliec-
y ton under this new system would be
~. 60. u and the total cost $50 scs. q !
should they increase the taxable returns
s,y eight ,,dll!ons OF dollars (ss 900. 0oo) the
state would set $a2 900 OF additional reNe-
niue ana nav ont 50 E2s.N In collection