The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-06-28

one school district. the court has very
4 carefully considered the position adj
| vocated by the attorneys for the coun-
~, that within \ certain specified
| period. In annual paymenta. the city
! should be required to contribute the
sum OF efoo,o 600 to be expended upon
| certain roads OF the county beyond
/ the annexed territory. The court liz
( frank to ses that II It thought Il had
! the power to do so, Il would make
! some provision Of this sort, perhaps
! not to the extent asked for by the
| county. but after careful and mature
/ consideraticn and fun examination
Of the law upon this point. the court
has reluctantly come to the conc!u-
sion that u has no such power
judges Have Power.
Prior to the constitution of 1909
the Legislature had the power OF pass
ing special statutes for the enlarge
pent of cities and towns. That the
jaeis1afura had this power was deter
mined against the city of Richmond in
~ Graft $50 The constitution of la02
deemed 1t unwise for the legislature
10 exercise this power any longer ana
declared that the general emhlF
shall provide by general laws Tor. fhs
extension and contraction of the cor
porata limits of cities and towns ana
forbade any special acts for the pef-
pose tSee Va Const Art. Y. SEC. lTn)'
The legislature, In pursuance on the
constitution ef Virginia. ht- an act ap.-
rraved March 10, 1904, delegated this
power of Judges Of the Circuit court BF
mis- act tho courts necessarily are
clothed with some legislative functions
along with judicial functions and in
Henrlco County VIZ. city OF Richmond.
100 Va. il was strenuo.isIy contend
ed that This law WAS unconstitutional
for that reason.
Judge Harrison, in delivering his
opinion in this case, says. Under TINS
constitutional provision 1t was IN
possible for the legislature to specify
nv general law what amount of terri
tory should be annexed. as the neces-
sjtv of each case would vary according
to the size crowded condition and
financial ability Of tho city asking for
annexation It was equally imprac-
t{eah1e for the legislature by general
law To- determine the terms and con-
ditions by which such extension shopid
he made 1t therefore became neces~
sity that the legislature should select
and designate some agency to exercise
a judgment on the facts of each case
The legislature declared the Circuit
court Judges Of this State rs the gov
=
provisions Of the law
Legislative Functions.
Clearly from the whole Of this opin-
Ion Il must be conceded that the Judge
performs some legislative functions and
that necessarily this will be the case
in properly determining the facts OF
each case, but the court does not think
that II has any authority whatever to
go beyond the clear intent OF the act
careful reading Of this act consider
ing all portions Of the same and at
tempting To give fun meaning t. the
act as whole. this court is inclined
10 believe that the terms and con-
dfions which IL hns right to deal
with in determining the question OF
annexation applies to terms and con-
dttona between the city and annexed
territory / say inclined to believe
because I hm not fully convinced that
this is the proper construction. The
main reasons why the court Is inclined
to this position Is that the provision
made for the counties lis expressly
stated in this act and nowhere Ia there
any positive power given the court for
applying this statement TO tho county,
and. further. the policy OF the act does
not seem to contemplate compensation
/ for territory 10 the county.
Whenever tho language in this act
Is used. giving the court power to de-
/ tern1ine what are fair and reasonable
/ terms. It is used In connection with the
annexed territory. but the court, in
It's Judgment. Is relieved from having
to determine whether or not this act
la comprehensive enough to give ~
! power 10 compel the city TO pay this
sum upon the county roads 1t seems
4 that the weight OF decisions is 40 tho
! effect that the legislature itself has no
! power TO compel 81 city to expend
/ money for any such purpose.
Judge Cooley Cited.
Judge Cooley. IN his Constitutional
/ Limitations. page 337, subdivision 3,
| says: 1T as believed the Legislature has
no power against the will Of "A muni-
! cipal corporation to compel 1t to con-
| tract debts for local purposes in which
| the State has no concern or to assume
/ obligations not within the ordinary
I functions of municipal government
/ Such matters are to be disposed OF
/ in view of tho interests Of the cor
porators exclusively. and they have the
same right To determine them for
/ themselves which the associates in pri-
I vate corporations have to determine
/ for themselves which arise for their
corporations. The State In such cases
may remove restrictions and permit
( action. but it cannot compel H." Cit
Ing CarIin VIZ. Saginaw. 80 Mich. II
I ia n w. e770). IN which it WAS stated
that the city cannot be compelled to
erect building for the county. but
Il may be permitted 10 do so II it so
elects.
on page S4t Mr. Cooley says: Those
/ cases which hold 1t competent for the
I Legislature TO give its consent to a
municipal corporation engaging in
works OF public Improvement outside
It's territorial limits or becoming n
I stockholder In private corporation
,nust be conceded on all hands TO have
gone TO the very limit of constltu-
tionaI power In this direction, and to
, hold that the Legislature may go even
further and under this power control
/ the taxation OF political divisions and
ORGANIZATIONS of the State, may COM
pei them without the consent of their
4 citizens 10 raise money for such, or
any other unusual, purposes, or to con-
tract debts therefor seems &c US II
be introducing new principles into our
system Of local self government not
within the contemplation Of the makers
( Of the American constitution. There
are cases which hold the contrary view;
that Of Thomas VS.. Leland, "a Wend.
IS"