Clinch Valley news. [volume] (Jeffersonville, Va.) 18??-2019, 1911-12-01
COUNTY LIABLE kQR
THE ROAD BONDS
Supreme Court Renders A
Lengthy Opinion EHecting
Tazewell's Future.

/ The Supreme Court of Appeals OF
Virginia rendered an opinion Wednes
day morning, sustaining in every
particular the recent opinion of the
Circuit Court of Tazewell County in
] the case of Moss against Tazewell
county, friendly proceeding intsti-
tu'ed to determine the validity of the
Iazewell county road bonds, as to
whether the bonds were direct county
obligations, etc. The opinion of the
Supreme Court means that the money
from recent bond sales will soon be
availabl e for road purposes in the
Sunty. The following extracts of
the opinion were prepared by H. r.
Hawthorn, of the law offices of Henry
and Graham:
This writ of error is to judgment
rendered upon motion by the circuit
court In behalf of the defendant in
error, the plaintiff below, against the
plaintiff in error, G. ]. Moss, for the
purchase price of three bonds, known
as "road bonds" each of the de-
nomination of 1000.
These bonds constitute part of
bond issue made by Tazewell County
by virtue of an act Of the General
Assembly of Virginia, entitled can
act to provide for the issuing of coun-
ty bonds for permanent road or bridge
Improvement in the magisterial dis
tricts of the counties of the State"
approved February 25, 1908. 3 Va.
Code supplement, 1910, Pollard),
p. 729.
In pursuance of this act an election
was held in Tazewell County to take
the sense of the qualified voters of
the several magisterial districts of
the county and of the qualified voters
of the county, whether the board of
supervisors should issue county bonds
aggregating $625, 600, for the entire
county, the proceeds of which were
to be apportioned among the several
magisterial districts in accordance
with the provisions of the act. The
election was duly held and resulted
favorably to the bond issue.
We have scrutinized the proceedings
leading up to and including the au-
thorization, execution, issuance and
sale of these bonds, and, without un-
dertaking to set out in detail the
various steps taken, it is sufficient
to say that the county authorities
have substantially complied with all
the requirements of the act.
There are only two assignments of
error which demand our attention.
The fact is, "That the statute under
which the election was held and the
bonds issued is unconstitutional; :"
and second, "That the bonds are not
direct county bonds for which the
county is primarily responsible, but
are direct magisterial district bonds,
these districts being primarily liza
BILE. 4" With respect to the first as
it is maintained that the
act is in conflict with that portion of
section 168 of the Constitution of 4
which declares that, &C.. all
taxes, whether state, local or munic-
ipal, shall be uniform upon the same
class of subjects. within the territorial
limits of the authority levying the
tax, and shall be levied and collected
under general laws. !"
Objection to the constitution ality of
this act has recently received careful
consideration at our hands. In May,
last, petition for appeal from a de-
cree of the Circuit Court of Lee
County, in the case Of Holiday, for
etc., VS.. Board of Supervisors, in
volving the precise question now in
judgement, was refused by four of
the judges in vacation, and after
wards by the court, on the ground that
the decree of the circuit court, main
tianing the consttutionality of the
act, was plainly right. In these cir
cumstances, we would ordinarily have
simply denied a writ of error in the
present case; but in view of the large
number of bond issues under this act
throughout the State, we have deem
ed it advisable to affirm its constitu-
tionality by an authoritative decision.
The principle is elementary, that
"The power of the legislature of the
State is supreme, except so far as il
is restrained by the State or Fedora
Constitution, and even in case o.
doubt as to the power, all doubts ar,
to be resolved in favor of the exis.
tence of the power. The courts hav,
no power to declare an act unconsti
tutional, unless it is So clearly ant
plainly so that there can be no doub
on the subject
mi