The Farmville herald. [volume] (Farmville, Va.) 1890-1934, 1901-05-10

-. Time lasts just As inevitably a. the res
p" less surging of the ocean. but und,
~ such "A government "a ours, the COnsf
e tuition, built strong and lasting, mu.
m be the breakWater against which the
~, may beat but must not pass
D" Having promised this much | mu.
n say that | think the act under c0nsid
N Grafton D. unconstitutional for the fol
- lowing reasons: lst Ii cOniravene
= Section ] of Article 10 of the Consiitu
u ton Of Virginia which provides tina
Z taxation shall be equal and uniform
e lnasmuch a. il provides for an apprO
prlatlOn of money out Of the treasury
OF the town of Farmville (which apprO
piiatiOn must entail taxation, as al
J. appropriations dO for the benefit o
10 farmville Magisterlal District, Outsd,
of the corporate limits and for the ben
eft of the state of Virginia itself.
, know it is cOntended for the defence
o. that the District and the State are not
To receive anything but profits and il
there are no profits they will receive
nothing, but who knows whether there
is To be any profits? 1t Is certain that
there's to be compulsory appropriation
out Of the treasury Of the town of Farm
vile before there can be any possible
profits, and il is equally certain that
this appropriation is To be made for the
Prospective benefit Of the District and
of the State Can it be seriously con-
tended then, that the tax is not for
their benefit as well a. for the benefit
Of the town Of Farmvile? If there is
no profit neither will Farmville get
anything, but it will have the bills to
pay and the people must be taxed To
restore the lost money To the treasury.
But it is said there will be prOfit-there
Is always profit in the liquor trade. Is
/ this so? Let Us suppose for instance
that the liquor dealers in other places
| should combine against the Farmville
! Dispensary and set up a business across
the river within stones throw Of
Farmvlle and undersell the Dispensary
and break up and destroy its trade.
Such thing is quite within the range
Of possibility Where then would the
profit be and what would the Dispen-
Sary do with its stock Of liquors paid |
for out Of the treasury Of Farmville? Ii |
could not sell them, for the act (sec. 81 |
provides that no liquors shall be sold |
"tO persons purchasing for the purpose
Of selling again. 1t is well settled
law that when tax is levied for the
benefit Of a particular district. it must
be equally levied on property in all
portions of that district. See Cooley
on taxation 2nd edition PIP 244-52, note
O,t il here be noted that wherever
this authority is referred To in this
opinion the 2nd edition is meant. 1t
is said there that: "Ihe taxing district
through which the tax is to be appor-
toned must be the district which is to
be benefited by It's collection and ex-
penditure When city is part Of
"A township it Is not competent for the
legislature TO exempt its inhabitants
from the payment of township taxes for
highway purposes" OF course the
converse Of this last proposition Il true.
The tax must rest upon all parts of The
stale. county or district alike, to be
equal and uniform.
2ud. think the act likewise ObnOX- {
ious t0 Section rs, Article 10 of our Con-
stitution which provides that every
law which imposes, revives or contln-
Ties "A tax shall state distinctly the tax,
dc. though little need be said on that
subject. The tax imposed by this act
Is lactically unlimited because there q
Is no limit to the appropriation. Ger q
tainly under our Constitution no pub q
he act which provides for "A tax with
out mentioning the rate or for an I'M
limited appropriation could be upheld {
for "A moment. Can "A special act Of I
this kind be upheld? 1t may be noted .
lust here that the Constitution of New
York contains provision exactly :
ike ours, which was doubtless copied o
rom the New York Constitution, and |
Inc court i'm the case of the People vs.. ,
Flagg IS y. Y. D. 4O7 "a case referred u
10 and relied upon by the defence here !.
aid: "COnceding that the construc- u
ion given To this clause of the COnsti- u
ution 10y the defendants is the correct a
me and that it applies to local as n
we'll a. state tax we think the point Is II
lntenableu and then went on To eX- u
,lain that the act under consideration Il
United the expenditure under It. The II
at objection, tO-wit: That there Is no o
,ower in the legislature to cOerce or II
eauire municipality Of the state to a
20 into a trade or business and to con- u
ract "a debt for that purpose, consider V
he most potent and fatal to the valid =
~ of the act. In this respect the act u
n question differs from any other act a
f a similar nature. Even the cele- Il
rated South Carolina Dispensary act u
ontains no such provision but submits
he question to the option Of each city,
ounty or district
1t is true that this compulsory fea- Ii
4 "A "a TlurffgIllur -
rOyisiOn of the Constitution, and II Is
onceded that as a general proposition
violation Of the spirit Of the COnsti- d,
ltion alone does not come within the =
rovince Of the Courts, and yet il is ~
udisputed that there may be implied DC
iolatlOns of the Constitution Of which
he Courts may properly--nay, must
AXE notice some things are too plain
, be written; aud | think the great
eight of authority is against the ex- f,
rcises of any such power. Judge n
oolev i'm People vs.. Hurlburt 9 Am.
len lO3 SAYS: "And the question
roadly aud markedly stated, can be
othing short of this; whether local
Elf government i'm this state is or not
mere privilege conceded by the leg L
Stature i'm its discretion and which
nav be Withdrawn at any time at
leasure? | state the question thus -
roadlv because Notwithstanding the a,
bic arguments made IN this case, and
tier mature deliberatiOn, l can con-
Give Of no argument in support Of the
,gislative authority which will stop
hort Of this plenary right PIP. lO5 9. -,
u State VI. Tappan wisconsin, > Am. ~