Bluefield evening leader. [volume] (Bluefield, W. Va.) 1906-1911, 1907-11-02
SATURDAY, NOV. =, 1907.
WHO WAS RIGHT

ceHio bond Issue ve ma e the a5rar.
lion that city ta.,s could b. NOR
than 40 cents on the hundred dollar
assessed valuation of property. We
made this assertion aiyiseily, bur
The committee appointed by In,
FnImoer OF commerce took issue wiz
ns and made tho statement that W.
were wrong, saying that II, woul
Rave been better had the author o
his article properly posted hinsei
Prior TO making such a statement
sad that from chapter CO. section
OF the acts of the legislature
1907. il was cl ar that no munici
Pal council or other leYylng body cal
levy in excess of forty cents on III,
hundred dollars valuation OF an:
properties whatever"
The decision handed down b
judge Pofterbarser in the Wiz
county case vinlIcates the position
OF the Leader in the assertion tba
the acts OF 1907 did not conflnc n
levy for municipal purposes 10 fort
cents on the hundred dollars. Will.
The decision In the Wirt county cas-
referred to the county levy instead O
levy for municipal purpose, the
wording OF tho limitation clause T.
the one Is almost identical with tn
other AMI he construction place
Upon the one will necessarily aDpl
10 the other. 1t Is in no spirit @
criticism that We bring this matte
20 the attention of the public. bu
va feel that the Leader was undul
criticised for making the assertio-
that CHAPTER So OF acts 1907 did no
limit city taxes TO 40 cents for othe
Khan general purposes, ana now tina
lhe supreme court or We~t Virgini
has viniicated our position, we fee
justified in bringing the matter
their attention.
We made the assertion last sprin
that the ats OF 1907 ala not repea
section 1911 OF the Code of Was
Virginia and that that cec.lon whic'
made It possible for a city to make 3;
levy as high as $50 on the hundrc
dollars was still In force.
The Supreme Court has declare
thai chapter GO of acts 1907 whic'
Immediately follows the statute lin
ftins the levy on cities and town
and, were in fact drawn BY IN
same hand. and save with the e1
eeption that one applies to countie
AID the other applies 10 cities ar
almost identical, does not limit tn,
levy 10 the amount named in tn
acts of the last legislature.
If chapter 63, which says tina
county leyies shall in no case ex
coed thlrty-lve cents on tle one hun
dred dollar does not prohibit {
county from Lying as much as thir
fy-three and one-third cents add
tional for roaI purposes. n n chap
ter 81 which avs that mo counci
OF any city. t2Hn or wage. shall Il
my one year assess or levy take
upon property. real or personal.
more than forty cents on the hun
bred dollar. canhoc limit city
IeTy from being higher than fort,
cents. provided 80 BE- for a specif
purpose mentioned IN section 1917
Of the COKE Of 1906 IN construinf
The statute relating 70 county levies
rhs cour aid:
Laws relating 10 different sub
iects are not In part materia
The repeal 81 a atatu.e merely
qualifying or limiting another. or OK
cepting so-l thing from &C.. leave.
NE original statute in full force an
gisor. such qualifying or limitinf
statutes does not ehec, repea
within tho meansing Of section 10 0
chapter 10 Of The code Of 1899. sec
ton 2s6 code"
We pointed out ina. section 1 o.
chapter GO. acts 1907. dgI not reDes
ssction 1911 Of code inasmuch g.
The Limitation contained In acts 1907
only related 20 chap ~ and no
47a, and section ] Of chapter 81 o
zcts 1907 not being In parl materl,
vHh section 1911 OF ne code whiot
provides that city taxes may be 2
much as $50 Oh the hun1reI dol
lars that The latter law was riil 81
full force
II the acts Of 1907 does not llmi.
ths county levy 10 certainly DOES no
the city levy IL me county can q
teycrd the limitation named IN chap
tor c. Of tn acts 1 1907 then tic
city can 20 above the limit named ir
khe preceding chapter for the par
pose mentioned in secJon 1871 Thu
Constructor Of one S. n CO sarily che
construction OF tho other.
We have long since buried The
snimOs.ties u the boni issue cam
Baign. and bat foT the nnwarrsatei