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

cision The invnlidlty Of the net Just above
| nuoted come to the real question IN
| this case In my opinion, ns to tho effect
Of the curative act, approved March III
|19oS entitled: "At, act to amend nnd re-
ennct chapter % of the Gods Of Virginia,
| in relation to the assessment Of lands and
| LOTS, as the same was amended and re-
enacted by chapter. 3SS Of the Acts Of the
General Assembly, 10O2-3-4. approved De-
cen1ber 10, 1903 to validate assessments
and other acts done under the aforesaid
net OF the General Assembly.
First. Had the General Assembly oL
Virginia the right to validate, by a suhse-
quent statute, the assessment irregularly
or without authority OF law, made under
the net Of December 10, 1903 65&
LAS throwing light upon this question
many cases have been cited by counsel
for tho complninnnts, and the court has
examined numerous cases bearing upon
the 2point--thnt Is to say, so many as the
court could examine in the limited time.
allowed 4 or an investigation of this very
Important and far-reaching question. No
case directly in point can DO found III
the reported decisions Of the Supreme
Court Of our own State. # # & a al KS a !;
4 m the case Of Merchants Bank vs..
Ballou, os va. 112, citing town of Dnnvile
VS.. Pace, 25 Graf. !, L gather the principle
rs announced by our owl, Court Of Ap-
ipaals that, so long as vested rights are i
not intorfered WITH the Legislature has
the power to pass retroactive Ia Ws, but,
as none on the cases of our own court
are opposite. I shall not dwell upon
them, AZ .l # &. I'LL Us I'll III js4&
IlA case more analogous to the case here
presented IS that OF Boardman VS.. Beck
With, decided by Chief Justice Wright OF
the Supreme Court Of Iowa, in 1854, and
l will add that on the hencl, at that time
and sitting In the trial OF the case was 4
that distinguished lawyer, John F. Dillon
whose ability as a Judge, lawyer and
text writer compares @ fnvorably with
those Of any or$the eminent 1ursts which
our country has produced. The question
there involved was aFquestlon Of taxa
ton and the validity of II curative act,
1T wns q case where property was sold
by q treasurer on the, first Monday In !
October, 1860. for tho delinquent taxes of
1885, the deed being made to the pur-
chaser on October 20, 1858. $5
Appellants contended that there was no
law IN force authorizing the levying or 4
collection of taxes for the year 1858. \
Chef Justice Wright says: "On the 22d
sof March, 1855 Il general net was passed
relating to levies Claws 1885,, Chapter
\ 1922. which took effect OH July a. 1858, \
and repealed nl prior acts in conflict
herewith BY this act, fowever,'no pro-
vision was made for tho levying and
At the next session of the General ASS
scmbly.$ Aprl.2, 1860, m act was passed |
to enforce tho collection OF delinquent
taxes for the year 1S5S, which in It's I
preamble. refers to the prior leglsla- !,
ton and tho omission therein, an! reclt-5
Ing that taxes were assessed and levied
In pursuance with the laws In force
prior to 1858. Then follows an enactment
egaizing such levlos and assessments
with tho like effect ms If chapter 152 had
not been enacted, and declaring 1t law
full for and the duty OF the proper Off
GERS to proceed to collect the taxes thus
leEalized. rs In other cases OF delinquent
taxes asscssed according to law, Ei},t,
The point here sought to be maintained
was that it was not competent for the
General Assembly to thus egalIze the
levy Of 1858; that there was no other
law at the time authorizing such levy,
and assessment and that all proceedings
hereunder notwithstanding the curative
net were null, Illegal and void. This act
became effective May ., 1860. Says tho
judge: THAT 1t is competent to thus
legislate we entertain no doubt. The
power of the Legislature to pass acts OF
this character, conductive as they are to
! the general welfare, and based upon
considerations of controlling public neces-
sity, Is, in our opinion, undoubted. 1t
does not Interfere with vested rights, nor
| impair the obligation OF any contract"
See Is, Iowa 292, ct seq
Iowa Cases Cited.
In 1874, in the case of the Iowa Rail-
road Land Company. " Soper, 80 Iowa
| III, OF seq., the case above quoted from
| WAS approved. Chief Justice Miller de-
| livering the opinion of tho court. There
| 1t was held In tho absence OF any con-
| stituttonal inhibition the Legislatu hos
| tho power to pass retrospective or re-
| tronctlvc laws. and they should be de-
clnred imperative only when they inter-
fere with vested rights, and such laws
| MS distinguished from ex post fncto laws,
are not unconstitutional, Taxes levied
without authority OF law may DO ren-
dered legal and valid by subsequent leg
is latlon.
Since tho Legislature has the power 10
| pass all general laws for tho levying
| and collection OF taxes, ms we'll as special
taxes for the purpose of paying judgments
without limitations as to rate 1t may also
| legnlize ovies made In cases where there
is n lack OF lawful authority when tho
| Same are made. #a
tho case Of Boardman VS.. Beckwith,
| supra: III It was competent for the Gen
eral Assembly to pass the act above re-
| ferrcd to-, whereby the illegal and void
taxes levied IN 1855 were legalized ana
their collection authorized, It was like.
wise competent for tho legislature to
pass the act under consideration, and
thereby make the taxes to pay Judgments
which had been levied In excess Of legal
authority, valid and collectIble There
Is no valid argument to sustain tho for
mer. which does not apply to and sus-
tain The latter net, In both cases It is
q question of power and not one OF
policy, OF tho power to pass tho act in
| question we entertain no doubt This
power Of the legislature to cure defective
or irregular proceedings Is not limited
| by the fact that bnt for such curative
act, tho defective proceeding would be
4 wholly invalid or inoperative."
Vested Rights of Taxpayer.
Further on this learned Judge says In
his opinion: "Hnt the legalizing of tax,
which hut for .the iegalizing was Invalid
and not capable Of he!ng enforced does
not interfere with any vested right OF
the taxpayer. II lis argued that before
| the passage Of the curative act. the plain
| tiff had right Of action TO recover back
| the illegal taxes paid, and that Is N