The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-04-01

right to resist a claim made upon Rim
E for taxes not this assessed He has q
right of action to enjoin the sale Of his
lands, or may replevy his personal prop
erty If seized for illegal taxes But upon
. the regular levy of taxes in pursuance
OF legislative enactment, his rights N
this respect are changed. His right to
resist the payment Of the taxes Is gono.
Tho statute has created a liability to
pay whore none existed before Its pas
sage, and this Is SO whether the act au-
thorlzlng the tax levies be passed prior
thereto or is an act leEaltzing q tax
previously levied u Il h Ill }t s;l "a N #
TN eiEher$case tho power of the General
Assembly to pass tho law Is tho same.
If It has no power to legalize tax al
ready levied without authority, 1t has
no power to confer the authority in the
first instance. II the right to resist the
payment of taxes assessed without au-
thorty Of law Is a vested right, which
cannot be taken away BY any legislative
act, then tho legislature has no power
to tax at all, for every statute which
provides for taxing tho persons or, prop
erty Of the citizens has the effect TO
create liabilities where none existed be-
foro tho. passage of tho statute II, there-
fore, the prior non-abilty be a vested
right that cannot be Impaired by legis-i
latlvc enactment. then there Is no power,
In tho state TO levy Or collect taxes, It
is plain from these considerations that no
vested rights arc Impaired by the passage
Of tho act in question In this case ~
Case Per Contra. X.
In commenting upon a case per contra,
Chief Justice Miller said:
"The case of Hart vs.. Henderson, u
Mich, 2ls, holds that the legislature hns
power to correct any mere lrreBulnrlty
in the proceedings for the assessment ana
collection OF taxes authorized by law.
hut when tho original tax was levied
without any authority OF law, no subse-
ouent legislation can make u lcsal
demand.
This Ia the only case we have been able
to find (cxcept tho Kansas case above
referred to- holding this doctrine, and "
is In direct and pnlpable conflict with
Boardmnn vs.. Beckwith, supra, and other
Iowa cases cited 1t Is also IN conflict
with the following cases; Winchester vs..
Corina, IS: Maine .; tho State OK rel VS.,
scudder, yroom 2o3; Bellows vs., Weeks,
ii VT, 800; Wnlpole vs., Elliott. IS Ind, 25s;
Thames Mfg Co. vs. Lathrop' CONN.,,
So" hi 4 M
And again in the same case, Chief JUS
tice Miller says:
at is further cnimed that the act
under consideration Is an intended en-
e,clse Of judicial power, and, therefore,
unconstitutional ara void, (liere speak,
ing of the curative acU.
"The exercise of judicial power Is not
within the constitutional authority of tho
General Assembly. That power 10
Confined to tho courts organized
and established rs designated In the
Constitution, Art. 5, Sec, !. When
vested rights are dlveretcd ny
legislative acts of this character they VIII
bo adjudged imperative and void ny mo
courts. Bags Appeal. 7 Wright "a Pa,
! ST. 5lo But the act under consdern-
| ton does not fall within this character
| of legislation, The power OF taxation
| is n necessary and indispensable incident
| TO every government, II Is one Of tho
| sovereign powers Of tho state vested IN
| the General Assembly and Is exercised
| by It without, the aid Of the courts, en-
cept where It calls IN that aid IN tho
collection of tho revenue, stewar VI. Board
OF Supervisors, etc, 30 Iowa, ., and eases
! cited; Grim vs., Welsenburs School Dis
I trict, 81 Penn. ST, 4S3,"
Power of Legislature.
In conclusion he says; We have seen
| that the General Assembly possesses the
power TO cure and render legal and valid
! by subsequent laws. defective Or irregular