The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-04-08
LAWS REGARDING
STANDING TIMBER.
Mr.. L. r. Buiord Writes on This
Subject OF Vital Interest
to Farmers.
CANNOT n ASSESS SEPARATELY
Calls Attention to Circular Let
ter from Auditor Of Public
Accounts.
CANNOT ASSESS SEPARATELY

Especial to Tho Times Dlspatch.l
LAWRENCIVILLE, VA. April T.
a question OF some Importance in its
effect upon the revenues of the state
and many Of the counties is raised by
u circular letter, dated March 10TH Is
sued by the Auditor of Public Accounts
to the Commissioners of Revenue on
the subject Of the assessment of stand
ing timber. for taxation. This letter Is
as follows.
II call you attention to the fact that
that there is no law5undcr which stand
ing timber can be assessed separately
from the land. Section 473A of tho
Code was amended by an act approved
February 81, 1906. SO as to require
standing timber trees, which had been
conveyed to parties not owning the
land to be assessed separately from the
land, and said act, as so amended, was
published in the first edition OF
TAX Laws, published in 1906. Said
section was again amended by the act
approved March H. 1906, and as amend
ed by the last mentioned act, It does
not provide for the separate assess
ment Of standing timber. You must
not, therefore assess standing timber
separately from the land in making
| your Land Book of 1907"
/ ( ~
refers were all the legislation on the
| subject it would not; follow that the
! express provision in the act OF Febru-
| airy 81, ! 9OG. "relatingj to the assessment
| of standing timber was repealed by
| the later act OF March 18th. The act
! Of March nth does not in terms re-
| peal or amend the act of February 21st;
! 1t merely amends and re-enacts chapter
90 of the Code and repeals such acts
as are in conflict. There Is no conflict
! between the provision for the separate
assessment of standing timber In tho
act of February 21st and anything
| contained in the act of March til,
| and the failure of the latter act to refer
to the former warrants the conclusion
I that 1t was not intended 20 affect the
express and distinct provisions IN the
! former act for the assessment OF TINS
class of taxable property.
But whether or not these two stat
utes are in conflict, so far as the as
sessment Of standing timber Is con-
| cerned, Is tmmaterial. Section 472(
contained in chapter "a of the Code is,
in my opinion, still in force. That
section. as amended during the ses-
sion OF 1SS9-'9O, Is as follows:
| IF the surface of the land is held
by one person and the standing TIM
her, trees, minerals. mineral water or
oil under the surface be held in fee
simple by another, the commissioner
| shall determine the relative value Of
each, and shall assess the several own
ers with the value Of their respective
interest If the surface and standing
timber, trees. minerals mineral water
or oil be owned by the same person,
the commissioner shall ascertain tho
value Of the land, inclusive OF tho
standing timber trees, minerals. min
eral waters or oil, and assess the Same
at such ascertained value. The COM
missioner shall mako the assessment
under the provisions OF chapter 90"
| l am aware that chapter ALT, OF Acts
19o2'3-4, as published, repeals sec
ton 472 but this chapter makes APP
preparations OF public money, and
under the provisions of section so OF
tho Constitution bill making such
appropriations does not become law
unless passed by tho affirmative voto
of a majority Of all of the members
Of both houses Of Legislature.
BY reference to page SIS of the
Senate journal Of that session, 1t will
be seen that this repeating act did not
receive the majority vote In the Sen
ate required by tho Constitutions. and
accordingly. in tho language OF tho
court in the recent case OF Whitloclc
! VS.. Hawkins, 105l Va, 242 this net,
while having every outward sem
blnnce Of authenticity, not having re-
ceived the necessary number of votes,
failed, Of its passage and is void"
Legislature Not Unjust.
If the above opinion is correct, sec
| ton 472, as quoted Is still in forco
and affords ample provision for the
| assessment and taxation of the extern
| sive values represented by the standing
| timber in the State now owned by other
\ persons than the owners OF the land.
! TO withdraw this property from taxa
tion could not have been intended by
| the Legislature, nor could the Legisln-
| ture have intended the injustice of I'M
| posing the burden of the timber tax
on the owners of the land, The amend
] ment of section 472 at the session Of
1 1SS9-'90S and of section AL at the same
| time, to mako the duties of the as
| SCISSORS under the latter tho same as
! those of the commissioners of the rev.
! cnue under the former, placed the taxa
ton OF this kind of property on It's
| Just basis The act Of February 81,
| 1906, Is an emergency measure, passed
MS soon as it was ascertained that these
! sections had been so amended and re-
| pealed by the acts of December 10, 1908,
| as to exempt the standing timber FROM
| assessment The modest aud unobtru
| sive way In which that result WAS
| again accomplished in thclnct of March
| II, 1906, justlnes the conclusion that
| both tho acts of December ] o, 903, and
| March II, 1906, escaped the strutinizins
| attention of the Legislature, and there
| was really no purpose that standing
| timber should have been omitted from
\ either act. Tho result however, of the
/ unconstitutionalty Of the act OF De-
cember 10, 1908, Is that section arg. rs
/ quoted above, remains In force, and
under that section standing timber
| should still be assessed
Very truly yours.
u. p. BUI'ORD.