Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-02-07
Attorney-Gcneral Pollard Holds
Tavenner Amendment to Be
Unconstitutional.
DEFECT CAN BE REMEDIED
House Refuses to Concur, and
Invites Committee of
Conference.

istration's segregation bill was halted
by an opinion OF AttornnyGcneral
John Garland Pollard. who pronounced
the amendment unconstitutional.
Thus was final action on the tax
measures delayed until tomorrow.
The opinion was given in response
TO request contained In a resolution
adopted by the House on Friday. Few
OF the members. however. anticipated
an opinion adverse to the amendment
But 1t was deemed wise 10 take the
precaution.
WILL III; NECESSARY ONLY
TO CHANGE THE WORDING
According to the Attorney General
IT Will be necessary only to change
the language. The effect of the
amendment he says. can be retained
The unexpected delay occaaioncd much
disappointment, for the members OF
both branches Of the Legislature were
looking forward TO the final action
with feelings OF relief.
Attorncy-Gcneral Pollard sent his
written opinion to the House shortly
after the noon hour. When II was
read. Delegate Aubrey G.. Weaver
moved that the House refuse 10 concur
IN the Tavenner amendment 10 the
segregation bill. and the motion was
adopted. The Senate having adjourned
an immediate conference between COM
nittees OF the two branches was i'm
possible.
1t was decided TO make the amend
ment n subject for conference Monday.
FULL TEXT OF OPINION OF
ATTORNEf-GENEHAI. POLLARD
Following is the fun text of the
opinion:
To the House of Delegates OF the
General Assembly Of Virginia:
"Gentlemen.-I am In receipt OF a
resolution passed by your honorable
body on last evening. requesting my
opinion, In writing, upon the consti-
tuuonal!ty of the Senate amendment
tknown as the Tavenner amcndmcnD
TO House bill S, providing for partial
segregation Of subjects OF taxation.
The bill. rs II passed the House
provided that Intangible personal
property should be the subject of State
taxation only. The purpose OF the
Tnvenner amendment was to .,llow. in
addition to the State tax n local or
municipal levy not exceeding 30 cents
per 300. The amendment in question
is as follows"
After quoting the text, of the amend
nent the Attorney General saws:
the proposed amendment violates ..c-
tion les OF the Constitution. which pro-
vidcs that all taxes, whether State
local or municipal. shall be uniform
upon the same class of subjects within
the territorial limits of the authority
levying the tax. From an examination
OF the terms of the amendment. II wir-
he seen that the Board OF Supervisors
OF county would have no authority
10 tax intangible personal property of
citizens or the county who resided in
Incorporated towns. IT. therefore, the
Board Of Supervisors or a county
should levy a tax on intangible nor
sonal property and The Council of a
town located In the county should
fall TO levy such tax, then those cit
liens OF county residing outside the
corporate limits Of towns would be
subject TO tax on intangibles' while
those citizens of the same county re-
siding In incorporated towns would
be free from such tan I-nrer this
condition. the question arises whether
such tax would be obnoxious to the
terms OF the Constitution declaring
that taxes must be uniform
within the territorial limits of the au
thority levying the tax
ATTORNEY-GENERA
QUOTES AUTHORITIES
This question, OF course, would not
arise where such n tax In towns was
levied by the Town Council. because
the territorial limits of their taxing
authority Is within the corporate lines
In the case of Campbell VS. Bryant.
104 Virginia, 500, the court decided
that the General Assembly had M
power 10 exempt the taxable persons
e;,,
the limits of n county and forming
part thereof and based its decision
,poT the section OF the Constitution
above quoted
II am. therefore. to say the least
doubtful as to whether the courts could
uphold the Tavenner amendment in its
present form. and if your honorable
body shares the doubt here expressed. T
respectfully suggest for your consid-
eration, that the able constitutional
lawyers In your body may be able TO
so change the Tavcnner amendment as
to substantially accomplish Its purpose
and dt the same time relieve il from
the constitutional objection referred to.
-. Another objection which has been
raised TO the amendment is that il pro-
Nidcs for n tax on intangible personal
property at rate other and different
from the rate which may be levied on
real estate within the same Jurisdiction
can find no provision of the Consti-
tuition which requires all classes OF
property to be taxed at the same rate
IT Us not uncommon to tax real estate
at one rate and other classes of prom
crty at another rate. The present Cen
cral Assembly at its regular session,
fixed the rate OF taxation on money at
ano5her and different rate from that
levied on other classes Of property. In
asmuch as there is no Constitutional
provision to the contrary, I am Of the
40 oh No.
to is not we'll taken.
AMENDMENT CONFLICTS
WITH BODY OF BILL
20. Tho third objection which has
been raised to tho amendment s that
It undertakes to segregate intangible
personal property for State taxation
Continued on. Ninth Page)
: