The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-04-01
|'|l|..ANDHASSESSMENT'
lA !. A
Judge Migrants ooiA:ola, Handle. Handel
Down iii Case 81 Whitlocl;
Against Hawkins.
CURATIVE. l.;J, ACT MADE II GOOD GOOD
Temporary Victory for Common
wealth; Case Now Goes to
u s85 Court Of Appeals. IN

HEN In the Law and Equity Court yesterday
Il; Judge John n. ingram handed down q
SS decision In the suit OF Charles y. Whit
.3SIock against o. a. Hawkins, commissioner
OF the revenue OF tho city Of Richmond.
IA This declslon IS the result, MS fur as It
Il goes. OF Mitigation attacking the validity
or the recent land assessments through
n out the Commonwealth. N
As will DO seen the decision. given be. be-
Il low In full, Is against the complninants,
B but innsmuch as tho case will 30 to the
y Supreme Court OF Appeals, where IT VIII
" come up at tho special term Of that court
ito be commenced April 10th, the end
Els not yet. A final decision against the
1 assessment law would throw the financial
AFFAIRS Of Ethe Commonwealth into q mild
X state 81 confusion a decision sustaining
Judge Ingram's opinion. however, would
$straighten out q tangled web by remoY-
Ing all doubt as to- asses sments. 1sl N. any
event It Is very necessary that the mat
ter should be settled one way or tho other
at an early date, and for this reason
the Supreme Court Of Appeals Will hold
the special session beginning on the 10th.
Opinion Of Judge Ingram.
The opinion OF Judge Ingram follows:$g
8 Judge OF the Law and Equity Court Of
the /city Of Richmond in the suit OF
II Charles L. y Whitlock and others vs. q.
a. Hawkins, Comms sioner of tho Reeve
niue OF the city Of Richmond.
s Il have decided to refuse the Injunction
prayed for In this case and to enter an
K order Diminishing the bill, tho case COM
Ing on to be heard upon the Bill Of the
complaints, with the exhibits thereto an
$nexcd, and the answer OF O. a. Haw- /
Akins I'd Commissioner of the Revenue OF
the city Of Richmond. ,l5l Il /.
i4&$ The complaints make the point that the
aot Y OF December 10, 1903. entitled: An
act to amend and re-enactE Chapter u oi
the Code Of Virginia IN relation to the
assessment OF lands and lots" which Is
claimed to have been passed in obedience
TO the mandate OF section III of the Con-
stitution OF Virginia, which provides that
..the General Assembly shall provide for
II the re assessment Of real estate S. for
the year 1906, and every fifth year there
i after, except that Of railway and canal
corporations, which, after January ],
\ 1914, may DO assessed as the General
Assembly may provide Is null and
void and that no part thereof has tho
force OF "a law, and that all assessment
and all other acts of every kind which
have been made or done In compliance
Ii With tho provisions thereof are null
son that said act was not passed as
required by section 80 Of the Consti-.
tuition of Virginia, tho grounds for the
inyalidity of said act being that the act
BE undertook TO make continuous or tore
vlve an appropriation Of pupnc money
4; or undertook to impose, continue or re-
S}rive the taxes, und that section so Of the
Constitution Of Virginia provides that
4 mo bill which makes continuous
or revives an appropriation Of public or
trust money .'5Sor which imposes,
. continues or revives a tax, shall be
Ii passed except by the affirmative vote
II OF a majority OF all the members elected
4 to each house (of tho General Assembly,,
Il tho vote to be by the yeas and nays,
II and the names Of the lnenrbers voting
II for and against, entered on the Journal
Il and that tho journal OF the Sennte
4 for the years 1902-3-4, shows that the
i said act only received 1s-8votes whom
x It was Attempted 70 BIO passed by the
II Senate, and further alleging that q ma
I jority OF all tho members elected to tho
Senate did not vote In favor of the
IL passage OF said act.
55s "A copy Of the Senate Journal Is filed
wit h the Bill, and the correctness of tho
vote therein stated is admitted by the
4 answer and not denied and 1t Is further
commended that the curative act, approved
y March II. ls0J.,.n COPY OF which Is filed
Il cure any proceedings or action had under
1.-THE act of December 10. 1908. for the
treason that the said act OF December 10,
il 1903, did not receive tho number Of votes
I, constitutionally required, and that all tho
proceedings hereunder were consequently
void, and that therefore, tho curative act
could not validate tho assessment or
proceedings had Hereunder.
\ Concession for Arguments Sake.
I shall not discuss tho question Of the
Y inyalidity of the act OF December 10, 1908,
but for the Sake OF argument will con-
II cede that act to be invalid, because It
y did not receive the constitutional vote
Il required. In passing I will say, however,
that the case OF lambert vs. Smith, re-
I ported In 9S Va. POS. in which the supreme
b Court Of Appeals Q. virginia, ns It was
an application for writ OF habeas corpus,
4 did not file an opinion, does not construe
Il an act In all respects similar to the act
& OF December 10, 1908. but as have before
n stated, for the sake Of tho argument,
\ s------.---- ------s--.------
L