The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-05-04
BOOKS COULDNOT
GOTO THE COURT
So Court Went to Books in Case
Without a Parallel in
Virginia.
DEFENDANT NOT CONCERNED
Question of City Treasurer's
Right to Succeed Himself
Squarely Up for Ruling.

Without parallel irf the lawbooks e..
the case OF James a. Scott We. b. O.
James. Secretary of the Common
wealth. argument in which began yes
tcrday before Judge Beverley II.
Crump, of the Law and Equity Court
1t involves several constitutional points
never raised or decided before. The
question at issue is: Has the General
Assembly of Virginia the power to
resubmit TO the people in 1912 the
constitutional amendment allowing
city treasurers and city commission.
ers OF tho revenue TO succeed them
selves indefinitely? II Il has not the
power, number of such officials viii
have to vacatc this year offices which
many of them have held for yoars
The electorate voted upon this amend
ment in 1910 and defeated IL. put tho
ohlclais affected Succeeded in persuad-
ing tho General Assembly to resubmit
IL TINS year. and the petitioner In the
case now being heard is seeking 10
prevent the resubmission of the cues
ton to the voters at the polls. The
contention of his counsel is tina, tho
under the Virginia Constitution, the
amendment cannot be voted on until
lsli, since the Constitution REQUIRES
mat two successive Legislatures must
pass upon tho amendment.
The attorneys for the city treasur
ers and city commissioners of the reye-
nue claim that the submission In 1910
was Invalid. because two sections OF
the Constitution were amended in
tain that the two sections should hay.
peeH submitted separately to be con-
stltutional The present suit Is to test
the const!tut!onality of the act OF mo
General Assembly IN 1912 in rcsub
hitting the question. James a. Scott
as taxpayer is seeking TO restrain
the Secretary Of the Commonwealth
from putting In motion the election
machinery which would permit a vote
on the question.
Dir. Hnrper's Argument.
Arguments were made Yesterday NJ
II, l.. scott and David Leakc, OF the
richmond bar and Marti Williams
OIL 1ilts. the patron OF tho resubmis-
sion bill in the last General Assemb,v
In the cause OF the treasurers and com
nissione-s has been enlisted Il form,d-
anie array OF legal lights. for to-day
randolph Harrison. OF Lynchburg and
Attorney General Samuel ". Williams
VIII also contend for the resubmIssion
IN opposition to Fred Harper Of
Lynchourg, the lone counsel for the
other side, who consumed a large nart
Of the afternoon yesterday In present
ing the case for the petitioner, Scott.
lie VIII conclude to-day. The number
OF books brought TO bear on Judge
Cfurnp' is astonishing-in fact. the
DOCKS could not go to him and so he
had TO so 10 the books. holding the
nearing IN the courtroom of the SUI
prcme Court OF Appeals, convenient to
the Law Library.
That the Law and Equity Court has
no Jurisdiction In the case seems TO
be the main point upon which the de-
lenders OF resubmission are resting
their case. They argus that the issue
Is political and not justicable: that inc
principle that the law will disregard
tTiiies must apply, since the financial
interest OF the pctitione-, who sues as
taxpayer. is about one four-hundred-
thousandth of cent. and since he
would suffer no peculiar damage by
resubmiss!on. They claim that the
people were not allowed to vote fair
IL and tntelligently In 1910. The FUR
Their point was advanced that the suit
Is one against the state. and, there
fore, unjustic!able. 1t was also held
OF course. that the submission in 1910
was Unconstitutional. and that the
General Assembly can rcsubmit an
amendment to the people at any time.
Not Employed by james.
II am quite sure that s. O. James
hasn't sent all these lawyers here 10
represent him.. said Fred Harper in
opening his argument, referring 10 the
tact that the Secretary OF the Com
monwealth is really not interested In
the case at all. and. of course. employs
no counsel to represent him. These are
the same ones who brought about so
unanimous verdict .oy the Lcgisla-
'ure," continued Sir. Harper. looking at
the five lawyers on the other side IT
know Of a member of the Legislature
who said he was convinced of the un-
constitutional!ty of the resubmlssion
OF this amendment. but that he would
nevertheless have to vote for It, and he
did,
Reference was also made to the
tremendous influences about the Leg
'slaturc" at the last session. the ex-
istence Of Il well organized and sue
cessful lobby by the city treasurers
and city commissioners of the revenue
to secure resubmisslon being an es-
tablished fact. 1t was argued by Mr.
Harper that the mere fact that the
petitioner, Scott, Is taxpayer Is
enough to give him his day in court.
The financial interest amounted to
nothing, he contended. To resubmit
constitutionally. he said. the whole
process must be started over again
and the matter cannot be referred to
the people until 1911. He showed that
an amendment had been submitted
and ratified In Virginia In 1873. which
was exactly like the one submitted in
1910, and that no one mad ever qucs-
toned 1t. Mr.. Harper cited many cases
TO show that the Legislature can sub
init as many sections .. the Constitu-
ton as 1t pleases in single amend
ment, and that only two succeeding
Legislatures can pass at all upon a
specific constitutional amendment.