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

proceedings, wherever 1t would have the
| power to authorize such proceedings III
I, the first instance Since, therefore, it is
within the proper scope Of legislative atl-
| thorty to pass general laws for the as
sessment and collection Of taxes, the pas
sage Of a general law curing and legal
king the levy and collection Of taxes
|irregularly4 or illegally levied, Is also ar
! exercise Of legislative authority as essen
ITALY as Is the passage Of an original act
authorizing the taxation. Such IN the
! character Of the act We are considering
lit does not encroach upon the domain OF
judicial power, but 1t is clearly within the
scope of Legitimate legislative authority
LIT legaliZed the taxes levied to pay judE-
Iments In tho various municipal corpora
tons which taxes were not legal and col
|lectible prior to the passage OF the act
because OF a want Of lawful authority tc
| levy the same"
Tho opinions OF Chief Justice Miller
In this case, and the opinion of Chici
Justice Wright, IN Boardman vs. Beck
with, supra, are strong and philosophical
! discussions Of the principle which SHOULD
guide tho court In arriving at correct
conclusion in the case at bar.
% Relying on Curative Act
The curative act OF March II. 1906, the
titlo Of which has already been cited, In
tho third subsection of section Az pro-
vidcs that: can assessments and all
acts OF every kind which have been made
or done in compliance with tho terms OF
chapter ass of the Acts OF the General
Assembly, 1902. '03, 'o4, approved De-
cembor 10, 1908, arc hereby conf'rS'ed
and declared to beEas valid and binding
as they or like assessments and acts
would be, II done under this act"
OIL oott xvo INT An,
gency existing, to protect the revenues
Of the State, this net shall be In force
from Its passage" .
That 1t was the Intention OF tho Log
islature Of Virginia, by this act. to valid
ate all assessments or acts done in pur-
sllance OF the act OF December 10, 1903
there can be no doubt hut this net Is
also attacked M being unconstitutional
and void because OF section 62 of tho Con-
st!tuton of Virginia, which is rs fol-
lows: "sccton 52--No law shall embrace
moro than one object, which shall bo ex-
pressed In It's title,8 nor shall any law
be revived or amended with reforonce to
Its title, but the act revived or the sec
tlon amended shall be re-enacted and
published at length"
Has Been PASSED. Upon,
Happily for this court and for the
neOpIe OF sYlTBll|ussll' I'roYlsioll VI tlle
old Constitutions, which Is Identical In
Language ana Is found In section Is
article v, OF that Constitution, has beer
PASSED upon in numerous cases by oul
own Supreme Court of Appeals
(, IN Iyerson Browns case, 81 Va. III
Judge Rely. delivering the opinion OF
tho court said:
"The provision Of the Constitution is
a wise and wholesome one, It's purpose
is apparent, It was y prevent the mem
hers OF tho Legislature and the people
from being nised BY tho tito or n law
IT was intended to prevent the use OF
deceptive titles as cover for vicious
Legislation, to preyellt the practice oil
bringing together info ono bill for cor
rupt purposes snbjed's diverse and dis
similar In their natV'rc, ana having no
necessary connertloH with each other
and to prevent surpriFe or fraud in lesIs-
, latlon by means Of provisions In bills
of which the titles I'VE no intimatlon,i *
"And, OH The othsH hand, 1t was not
intended to obstruct ifonest legislation, OF
to prevent the incorporation into a single
net OF theientlre sta9 ulory law upon one
general subject It Yas not designed Ia