Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1906-03-30
Contest Over Taxes.

One of the most interesting and far
reaching cases tried in Virginia in many
years is that involving the assessment
of the real estate of the commonwealth
for the year 1905, which will be heard by
the Supreme Court at special session
beginning on April 10th.
Public attention has already been
sharply directed to the matter, but it
took an interesting turn yesterday, when
argument was completed before Judge
Ingram, of the Law and Equity Court,
upon one of the many points upon which
the case Is to come up.
This was an Injunction proceeding,
seeking to restrain Commissioner of the
Revenue o. A. Hawkins, of this city,
from extending the new assessment upon
his books.
1t was brought by Messrs. O'Flaherty
aud Fulton, aud James f. Cannon, at
torneys for certain interests, and the
style of the cause is Cannon and others
vs.. Hawkins.
Mr.. d. G.. O'Flaherly ard Mr. James
b. Cannon argued for the injunction.
and it was opposed by City Attorney H.
K. Pollard aud Attorney General Ander-
sou. Commonwealth Attorney Minetree
Folkes va. present on behalf of the city,
but did not speak The decision of the
court will be handed down later, but
whatever it may be, the matter will be
taken up 10 the court of last resort by
consent.
The matter before the Hastings Court
is that of ID. @. O'Flaheriy, substituted
trustee for the estate OF Franklin
Stearnes, and The Whitlock estate, rep
resented by Mr.. Cannon. This, too, will
go up along with the first one, and the
third will be a mandamus proceeding by
these interested, seeking to require the
commission to extend the old assess
ment instead CT the new one upon the
books.
Attorney General Anderson is busy
preparing his answer in the latter cause,
in which the Supreme Court has origi-
nal juris fiction.
It will be a great legal battle and one
over a subject of vital importance to the
people aud the State.
Many questions will be raised, and
the case will be fought out on all con-
celyable points, so that the settlement by
the court will be at once final.
The issue was raised first by Mr.. Can
non in the Hastings Court, where he
was appealing from certain assessments
made upon the property of his clients by
the board of assessors.
He contended that the act of 1904
under which the assessors proceeded was
unconstitutional, because il received two
votes les; 10 the Senate than the corsti-
tuition requires. Again Mr.. Cannon con-
tended that subsequent act passed by
the last legislature, seeking to cure this
constitutional defect in the previous one
WAS null and void, upon the ground that
the legislature could not, by q subsequent
act, validate one that vas clearly in
VOWED. He further asserted that the
recent act itself could not apply, for it
would thus be retroactive 10 its opera
tions.
The city and State attorneys are pre-
pairing their side in a most exhaustive
manner, and feel sure they will be able
To break down the contentious Of those
who are making the fight for their clients.
The decision of the court Of lest resort
will be earnestly awaited by the pnblic,
as the questions involved fairly bristle
with public interest. = t Richmond Times
Dispalch.