The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-12-14
VOL. XL1I1.

szss1..1z-...s.-.. ...
consideration FIR Its rensssi with ssrearges of In.
! dtSiduaIs
fortiort Is there ample legal consideration when
| other circumstances involving principles Of COM
promise enter into the adJustnient when a large
proportion Of the principals permanently tenn
porarily ahatcd and when the new bond is taken for
hut two-thrds Of the debt Such would certainly
hc the case with individuals, and what Is good
consideration between individuals is good between
AGthSri.y on the QUESTION whether the adjustment
we are constdcrirS Is contract; and contract on
the case Of New Jersey rs Wilson & Crnch ie.
involving In substance The same questions Chief
contract existed and whether that Contract Is vio-
| lated by the act of 1885,"
Every requisite TO the formation Of contract Is
"found on the proceedings between the then
colony OF New Jersey And The Indians. The sub
"itct was purchase on The part Of the epSern-
"unguishmento of which would quiet The title to n
oron Of The , pfornee r , TO
rnfcI Is rrred s ys sh ac G of fom
with the privileges of exemption from taxation !;
sand then, in consideration OF the arrangements
"prcNiousy made one OF which this act Of Assem-
hly Is stated 10 be, the ,Ed!ans make their deed OF
"ce>sion. This Is certainly contract, clothed In
fof the benefit Of the Indians. Is annexed Ivy the
terms which create Il to the land Itself, and not TO
their persons" Aud he held that law OF The
l
wards, and after the Indians had sold their lands and
left The state, repeating the section which secured
PsSs OF RpalTfa ts cerinx
| "impaired BY law which would annul this essen.
"tnf part of H." ID. ,rp. 1867.
NOw II will bn thar all the requisites of con-
tract referred to by the ChirfJus'cc In New Jersey
| rs. Wilson exist In the case before II.
The suec, & matter was m an equiia&ole & annSsmens
| condition In which tho State Of Virginia was
placed. that the amount for which she was will
he distinctly aScertaincd, and her bonds given tor
that amount In lieu Of the old bonds. proposition
t. this effect IS made tho terms stipulated the con-
sdcratinn agreed on. which Is the issue 10y ihe
State Of the bonds and certificates aforesaid, with
tuc extended credit thereby secured. and tic fur
| thcr consideration Of the surrender hy the cirdi-
| tors of their old bonds TO be cancelled. The con-
seration the part of the creditors Is in fact com
! niicd with hy the surrender OF their bonis to bc
cancelled according the agrcc cceut, and the State
issues th III tho coupon bonds ami certificates rs
agreed with the privilege aforesaid on the face
of the coupons.
in the l.nguayc OF Chicf-Justce Marshall, we say
this j. certainly contract. clothed In forms OF un-
usual solcmnty and The quality OF rcceiYahiy for
taxes aud other dues To the state Is annexed to the
c0uDcn. ana foil il wherever il may 60. But we
are not without other authority even more directly
| In 1896 the Legislature of the State OF Arkansas
chartered bank called The Bank of the State OF Ar'
kansas the whole capital Of which belonged 10 the
State. and the president and directors were elected
by the General Assembly. a. section Q! The charter
Zion Shall be received In ali payments of debts due
to the State Of Arkansas" bu, this section was
pealed in ls45. Al the date OF the repeal large
amount Of the issues Of the bank were In clrcula.
tion portion of which were acquired by Woodruff
judgment GcbtGr OF the state after the date of the
iea1ins officer of the Stalc A 7nondn,aus was no.
piled for and refused BY the State courts. The case
carried to the United States Supreme Court b,
iieM. That ,hc legislation aforesaid, to receive
the notes in payments 20 the state, consntutede con
tract between the State End the holders OF the note:
| irl,
Trapnall, 10 Howard 100 Judge Mclean, delivering
the opni"p OF the court said The entire stock o.
.cupta and receives the profits, and In addition Il
"the crcit given to The notes Of the bank by III;
they shall lie recciTcd IN payment OF al Ge6is dut
"to il. Is this contract! 4 contract Is defined <
be an agreement between competent paTties e 90
on te part Of the State is TO receive the notes Of
'the bank In payment from It's creditors I'm:
contract founded on good and valuable considef1
tnn-a consideration beneficial TO the State Us rs
''profts increased by Substituting the credit, ans
consequently extending the circulation of the III.
: per Of the bank. With whom was this contract
'.or the bank The notes are made payable 10 heaer
consequently every bDna fGs holder has a right
under tn" 2.;h section, 10 ,ay the State any debt
continuing guaranty by the State that the notes
"shan br 80 received. such contract would bc
binding an individual, and it is not less so on
Tie guaranty included all the notes of the bank
in circulation as clearly Us If on the face OF every
note the words had been engraved; I" This n0ta shall
"be received by the state in payment OF dehtS
and that the Legislature could not withdraw this
| "nbligaton from trc notes in circulation at the
'timc The guaranty repealed is a pr"positi IN
(which can require no argumcui. ANY one had q
rEht 70 rGSece th'' IN nt oaS to test the constitution
an hs rescnE apESs with full force to l the
bcn s 1@pd the pcrcdtor d and eso @ i Grc
Immediately. IL Is her own DEBT ana not l:c dcDt
!. Of an insolycnt corporatio which she has con-
tractcd Ia receive. And they are stronger III t.iis
also that here The rcceivaE!llty "f the coupons ia
payments 10 the stat" Is engraved on iheir race
whereby the State publishes TO every ono who may
wish to acquire Il coupon that II will be received
IN nil payments to tc STATE, md thus invites lin 10
take whsrcasin Woodruff rs; irapnal altnrugii
Dcsreets D e '''S With ha' Of WoolrG g: Trapnal
Sicho decided by the Untei State; supreme Court
in l.GS u Wall. ~ without dissenting opinion.
Tenncssee. wGich like the Bank of the Su.ie Of ar.
kansas. exclusively state iistituion charter-
ed for the benefit and sustained by the credit oi tG
state. The i2th section of the charter provided
snally made payable, or which shall have herome
payable on demand In gold or silver COIN shall DC
receivable at the treasury of this state and hy all
the taX-collcctorS and other public cticcrs OF ibis
State in all payments for taxes and other moneys
Held That the provision constituted valid Icon
tract by the state w!h all persons rccriy ing them
remain in force should he received in payment ot Ill
public tie$ that the g'mrinty was in no scnsc 4
personal ORe. hut a'tavhc 81 TIE notes thclusrvs
much as if written on the back thereof: that thiN
guaranty went with Tie notes everywhere a3 long us
lcycXis!"d. and wa>a standing invitation to all per
ons 20 receive them even though the section Gtfer
the notes were Issued had been repealed Tie c"nrt
Spy-p u mo one dissentingj" quality OF n"gG-
liability Is annexed to the notes III word, tElt can
not be misunGcrstoood, and which Indicate the pur-
pose If the l.egi- that they should he used by
every one who Is Indebted to the State" and they
" "hcd that the contract under the Constitution OF
the United States could not he impaired by SuSC-
qucnt legislation"
These decisions, made by the appellate tribunal in
the last resort in such cases, directly the point,
would seem 10 be conclusive OF the question; but
they have been Incidentally approved by the unnni-
nous opinion u this court in the recent Of The
, Exchange Bank of Virginia rs. Knox, &c. (l9 Gylt
7ao} In that case Judge Christian, delivering the
| case before him from Woodruff cS Trapnlll, and
in reference to the latter case uses the following
language: The court decided that the act Of lsa'
"iepealing the 9th section OF The act OF 1896
constitutional because 1t impaired the obligation
"of tic contract created y that section between tEt
State aid the hill-holder 10 receive tts own notes
"of debts due TO it. The Judgment III this case was
"a debt due 10 the state Of Arkansas, and the prov
"sicn was that the notes and bills o: this tnstitu-
the State of Arkansas. This was clearly case o.
. contract which could not be impaired by subse
/, | ouent legisIatiOn."-l'age 753
such was the unanimous opinion of this court OF
the contract in the case OF Woodruff U.s. Trapnail.
4 muito foTtioyi. then IS this case of contrlc
NOT 10 be- Impaired by legislation, since here Is h
direct and irrevocabe undertaking of the State Sc
out in full the face Of the coupons that they shat
| he receivable in payment Of Ill taxes and dues 4
the Siate-thdt debt cf hers, pr1 que s!ai oe IL
. | cciyed In payment of debt due TO her.
Ru1 IL Is argued that IL Is not within the power
| the Legislature 10 make such contract; that l
/ would teud to trammel and enlbarrass the action
future Lcrislaturcs--to deprive them OF prope
,r t,o