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

cmbarrass legislation by compelling tho
multiplication OF laws by the passage OF
| separate acts on single subject. AL
! though5the act or statute authorizes many
Fittings OF n diverse naturs to be done, the
| title will be sufficient II the things author
lied may he fairly regarded ms In 1ur-
thcrnnce Of the object expressed In the
| title. 1t Is, therefore, to be literally con-
strued and treated, 30 as to uphold the
| law, II practicable. Cooley, Const. Linn,
p. IT'S. All {that;is required by the con-
| stitutional provision Is that the subjects
embraced in tho statute, but not specified
| in the title, are congruous, and have nat
lrral connection with, or are germane TO-.
the subject expressed In tho tite This
has been, so far MS we are aware, the
! construction given this provision OF the
constitution by this court, by the highest
courts OF other States whose Constitutions
contain tho same or a similar provision,
and by the Supreme Court OF the United
Stntes.'@ &}4,
Citing numerous cases on page 772 OF
his opinion See also Prison Association
Of Virginia vs.. Ashby. % Va. jGG7; Bosang
vs.. Iron Belt Building and Loan Assoc1a-
ton. 90 Va. 119; Trehy vs.. Marye. 100 Va.
40. and 50 Va. S7S rs
l shall not dwell longer upon this point
If contrary Wow should be taken as
to the meaning of this wise provision OF
ing, as 1t was Intended u Just provision
for tho prevention of fraud and surprise,
1t would be turned into a pitfall for the
conld!ng or tho unwnry.
Other Objections.
Another objection Is urged to this cura-
tive act. and that s. that, whereas by an
act approved March 10, 1901, amending
section 4i3 of tho Code Of Virginia, In
relation to tho making OF the return by
the assessors OF three copies OF their said
assessment, thoren provided for, In cities
having population Of over $1,000, tho
Judges Of the Hastings or Corporation
Courts should, IN their discretion, hayo
authority to extend the time for making
tho returns on the said assessments from
June list to September 1st,. In each year
in which said assessments are made, ana
that the judge or the Hastings Court Of
tho city of Richmond, acting In pursu-
nnce of said act by an order entered on
the 2Sth day of June, 1905. extended the
time for the making Of the return on said
assessments to the LIST day OF September,
1906; and, 1t Is Eurther commended, tina ms
this act was repealed by tho curative act
returns should be made on or before tho
list day OF June. 1906. or before the list day
of July, 1905; that, therefore, 1t was not
the purpose of the Legislature to vail
date tho making the extension OF time
allowed for the making o! the assessment
returns from July ], 1905, to September
], 1905 aia f
AS I regard the time for making tho
returns In any of these cases merely d.
rectory, shall not eXpend any time III
attempting TO rcfute the claim Of In
validity OF the assessment on this ground.
cite no authority for this position be-
cause | deem It unnecessary,
But there is another objection urged
to tho curative act of March II, 1906,
which probably deserves more careful
consideration, and that is that ny seq
ton AL of the curative act the time
within which erroneous assessments NJ
lands md lots may be corrected, by ap-
plication 10 tho Circuit Court of tho
county or Corporation Court of the COR
poralion, Is, fixed Mt any time prior to
the first day of February OF the year
, next succeeding such assessment. ana not
after; whereas by the act approved March
rs, 1904. the Legislature amended and re-
enacted section 444 OF tho Code of Yir-
glna, which relates to how and when as
easements OF lands and lots may be corr
rooted by providing that "any person
feeling himself a.ggrleyed by the assess-
ment Of his lands or lots may, upon
giving notice to the assessor or 70 no
attorney for the comnlonwealt til, apply 70
the Circuit Court Of the county or CO.'S