Year: 1878

49, The james River and Kanawba Com
pany shall pay the necessary expenses In
cured By said commissioners IN execution
OF the duties herein imposed upon them.
II. This act shall be in force from it:
| passage. .,t ssl .ss, 3t:s!! Il.


The Moffctt Lianor-Law.


A CASE INVOLVING THE coEsTITUTI0NALlTY
OF THE LAW DECIDED By THE SUPREME


COURT OF FAPPEALs-sYSOPs1s OF THE OPTN-
q ION AS DELIVERED BY JUDGE STAPLES.


The Supreme Court OF Appeals yester.
day decided the Helfrich liquor case.


The defendant was indicted in the Hust-
ings Court of the city OF Richmond for will
fully falling to register a drink of malt
liquor as required by the act OF March 80,
1877, known as the Moffett-register law.
He was convicted and sentenced to pay a
fine. n zst


He applied to the Court OF Appeals for a
writ OF error to the Judgment OF the Hust-
ings Court of Richmond, which was award
ed. The case was argued by Colonel j. b.
Young for the defendant, and by the Attor-
ney-G General for the Commonwealth.


Various points were raised by the learned
counsel for the defendant in the course. Of
the argument. The main ground OF obJec-
ton to the indictment was founded upon
the alleged unconstitutionality of so much
OF the act OF March 80, 1877, as made it the
duty Of the Auditor to supply the cities OF
the Commonwealth first with the Moffett
register. It appeared on the trial that the
Moffett registers were first placed ih the
bar-rooms of Richmond on the 1lth OF
September, 1871; that at the time OF the
finding of the indictment Ton the 25th OF
~ fhoyo holf NJ fbn pifips
and towns and none OF the counties had
been supplied with the register. It was
insisted that this was invidious and unjust
discrimination against the city dealers in
liquors; that the effect was to impose upon
them new and burdensome system OF tax
alton, from which the country dealers were
a long time exempt, and thus to violate the
rule Of the Constitution which secures uni
forInity and equality OF taxation upon all
engaged in the same business.


The Court Of Appeals held that the ques-
tion was very grave one. for il the oblec-
ton was well taken the State has no just
title to dollar Of the revenues derived
from the Moffett system, and may be called
upon to refund at the suit Of those who
have been subjected to the tax; that to de-
clare a legislative enactment void is judi
c;al function Of the most delicate character,
never to be exercised except upon the
clearest conviction Of the unconstitutionali-
ty OF law; that the Legislature possesses
the absolute and supreme power OF taxation
except so far as may be interdicted by the
mandates and restrictions OF the State ana
Federal Constitutions, and that the provl-
sion In the State Constitution requiring tax
alton TO be equal and uniform only applies
to the taxation Of property, and has no re-
ference to a tax upon licenses and privileges.
AS to these latter the rule is only to be APP
piled so fan as practicable.


Tested by these principles, the Court held
that the present case was OF easy solution.
In the nature Of things it was impossible
that the register could be put in operation
all over the State-in every city, town, and
county-at the same time. Necessarily,
there would be some delay, due to defects
in the registers, the ignorance or forgetful-
ness OF commissioners, and to other causes
not foreseen or capable of being provided
against in giving effect to new system OF
taxation. Consequently there must be some
period during which liquor-dealers in dif-
ferent parts OF the State would operate
under different systems Of taxation. When
q novel and important revenue system,
which is but an experiment, is adopted and
put into operation, q large discretion must
be left to the legislative department In re-
spect to the mode and manner of the assess
ment and collection OF the tax. II the de-
lay in the complete enforcement OF the law
is not unreasonable it be such as might
be fairly expected under all the circum-
stances-the courts cannot interfere with it,
because they may think some other more sat-
isfactory and expeditions means might have
been adopted. 1t is conceded that the pres
ent statute violates no express provision OF
the Virginia Constitution. When that is
the case, and the law is assailed because it
is supposed to be contrary to the principles
of good government, the injustice and OPP
preston ought to be clear and fragrant to
Justify the interposition of the judiciary.


The opinion of the Court then proceeds
to show that there is no such oppression
and injustice in the present law that would
warrant the Court in pronouncing it in
valid. On the contrary, it was but q just
and reasonable exercise of the power and
discretion vested in the Legislature in cases
of taxation.


The above is but Il meagre outline OF the
opinion, which was delivered by Judge Sta
plies.


The Court also decided the MarXhausen
case, reversing the judgment Of Judge Gui-
con as to the imprisonment imposed. From
that Mr.. Marxhausen is released. He has
only to pay the fine.