The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-06-27
POINT IS SCORED
BY PAWNbR0kERs
Supreme Court Grants Writ
of Error in Pistol
License Case,
CLAIM CITY ORDINANCE
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
City Cannot, Under Police
Power, Prohibit Bust
ness State Says
is Legal

| Declaring that the ordinance pro-
/ hfbiting pawnbrokers from buying
and selling pistols is Unconstitutional
/ inconsistent and bold attempt hy
the council, in cohesion with city Of.
Incials, to repeal an act OF the Isegt6~
liature. Joseph Elsner and Sol Elsner.
pawnbrokers trading as Elsner BROTH
ers, who appealed from the decree OF
the Hastings Court of June 6. won an
important point on Tuesday when the
Supreme Court of Virginia awarded
| them IA writ of error
The petitioners appealed from de-s
cree of the Hastings Court refusing
them IA writ of mandamus to force
20. A. Hawkins, commissioner OF rev.
enue, and James b. Pace, treasurer
! of Richmond, to issue license to
Elsner Brothers to buy and sell pts-
tolls under section 140 Of the State
/ tax bill.
! In the petition for writ Of error
lit is get forth that Elsner Brothers
were licensed as pawnbrokers In ac-
icordance with section 10 of the State
tax bill. and that they the napplied
/ for license as dealers in pistols at
ter paying the license tax and off,
GERS fee as prescribed by law.
amounting to SCOTS. When the city
officials refused to issue the license
and the Hastings Court refused TO
force them to do so, the pawnbrokerS
carried the fight to the Supreme Court
! which has consented to review the
case.
City Has No Right.
/ Through their attorney, Wyndham
r. Meredith, Elsner Brothers assert
| they have never denied the right of
! the city to regulate the business OF
dealing in pistols. but they declare
they do deny the right OF the city to
prohibit that which the State has
/ licensed.
| Commonwealth Attorney Minftreo
| Folkes and City Attorney f. r.. Pol-
l lard set forth that the city had the
right to enact the ordinance apprcv-
/ ed April IS last. prohibiting pawn
brokers from selling pistols. and de-
clare that this right of the city ID
embodied in its police powers.
| The pawnbrokers, in their petition
/ to the highest court. asks: Can II be
claimed that the city can make a par
| a statute Has the city the right to
aier section 40 Of the State tax bill.
sn that It will read Every person.
1 Erin or corporation except licensed
/ pawnhrokers doing business In tho
city of Richmond shall pay for the
+! privilege of selling pistoIsp'"
! The pawnbrokers contend that IL
business all cities in the State can
exclude all classes, an dthereby ac-
complish a practical repeal of an act
of the Legislature. They declare that
/ the city cannot. under its police pow
|er prohibit that which the Legfsla-
/ ture has made lawful They further
contend taht the Legislature and not
the council must decide whether the
ordinance Is justihable because 1t pre-
vents crime
| Hence it follows declare the pawn
/ brokers, that the bold effort of the
council. uniting with the very off,
Gals whose duty ii Is to collect the
revenue OF the State, to suspend sec-
| ton lao of the State tax BILL and de-
| prive the tSate OF its revenue is un-
constitutional The petitioners aver
| they have been advised that on hear
! ing and trial Of the case error was
committed by the lower court. and
| they pray the Supreme Court TO res
view and reverse the decree OF the
/ Hastings Court.