The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-07-14

See II we can arrive at fair and sat-
standing alone As pointed out be-
FORE, clearly Il was the duty of the
Commissioner Of the Revenue. under
section &?l, to apply to the court re-
ceiyer rcy list of this property. and
= IL equally. clear that IL was the
tluty of the receiver upon such APP
piication, 10 list these bonds. etc, un-
der his control. or in his possession,
for taxation. I take IT there can be
no dispute as to those two points.
Act Requiring Report Repealed.
But the statute provides further as
follows: And the clerk Of each court
shall furnish the Commissioner OF the
Revenue with all bonds and funds
held by the commissioner under the
authority OF the court. and the ques-
ton Is. what is a reasonable and prop
err Interpretation of this clause? Does
1t. as is commended by Attorney Cen
eral Pollard, require the clerks to list
and report all funds In the hands OF
special commissioners for taxation?
think not Why? Because this Sec
ton 492 specifically requires the re-
Ceivers and special commissioners to
list the funds in their hands, and II
only required the clerks to list for tax
alton funds deposited to the credit OF
the suit and not in the hands Of re-
ceivers or special commissioners. Sec,
ton 492 requires clerks to list this
property for taxation. but section 495
did. and section 493 has been repealed
as above stated.
Mr.. Pollard, in commenting on SEQ
ton 492. says: However, by an act
approved February "a. 1898. chapter
400. acts 1928, page 51s. section 492,
of the Code was amended and re-
enacted and the clerks of tho court
were again required to furnish the
Commits soners OF the Revenue a list
of this class of property held by com
misstoners or receivers under the au-
thority Of the court Mr.. Pollard
quotes this law incorrectly. Section
492, as amended, did not require the
clerks to furnish the Commissioners
OF the Revenue a list or these proper
ties but section 493 did require the
clerk to furnish such list and this sec
ton 4s3 by an act approved Febru-
airy "a, 1898 was repealed See acts
1se7-1sss, page $50.
Section 1872 never required the
clerks to furnish any list OF said
properties. but the larfvsage of the
statute Is as follows: And the clerk
OF each court shall furnish the Com
missioner Of Revenue with all bonds
and funds held by the commissioner
under the authority of the court"
What was the legislative intent when
It enacted that the clerk should furn-
ish the Commissioner of Revenue all
bonds. etc. held by the receiver under
the authority OF the court? It does
not say the clerk shall list these bonds
for taxation. That duty is imposed
on the receiver, but the language is
that the clerk shall furnish these
bonds-the bonds themselves-not "a
list of them. To arrive at a reason
able Interpretation Of the legislative
Intent and the construction the law
makers placed upon this language,
we must look to the facts within the
knowledge Of the lawmakers and with
which they were dealing These facts
were as follows: A court would by
it's decree order a special commits
sioner to make sale OF property.
That special commissioner would make
the sale and report 1t 70 court. file
his report with the clerk OF the court
andafi all bonds taken by him with
his report The clerk OF the court,
who is the custodian Of these papers
would take those bonds and lock them
up for safe-keeping. The Commits
sioner OF the Revens - would apply to
the special commissioner for a list
OF those bonds for taxation, and the
law required the special commiss oner
to give that list, and the law required
the clerk TO furnish those bonds--not
q list of them-but the bonds, to the
Commissioner of the Revenue, For
what purpose was the clerk required
TO furnish these bonds to the Com
missioner of the Revenue after they
had been listed for taxation by the
special commissioner? I can ina CINE
but one, and that Is that the Com
missioner OF the Revenue might see
that the special com missioner had
given him a correct list OF the bonds
in his hands. This, In my opinion is
the only reasonable Interpretation to
be given to section 1872. of the Code of
Virginia, Mr. Pollard calls attention
10 various amendments to section 1872.
That statute and no amendment there
OF ever required the clerks to report
funds in the hands of court receivers
10 the Commissioner of the Revenue
for taxation. Before the creation OF
the Office OF Examiner Of Records
section 493. of the Code. did impose
this duty on the clerks. but after the
creation OF the office Of Examiner OF
Records, section 493 was repealed. the
clerks relieved of this duty. and the
duty imposed on the examiners
BENZ. WATKINS LEIGH