The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-05-13

..t,. r>f.STN.sIAtTY OF C9IEnSs
YaR TANES.
-. sr tfirUT WEXFORD - IiE
.satl Nt\uAMJs CASE.

.,viay morning Judge Wexford
III Z mautilmu> 10 the sheriff of the
richmond n the suit Of \. Austin
a.auluc him 70 receive coupons in
.....s. ANS due 10 the state by MI.
|. G,iivcl'imG his opinion iheJudge
.a. Wn> compelled to pronounce the
s.,.@@y repeating that clause OF the
}i5l which made coupons receivable
. .a' g., public dues unconstitutional
...l 'ha; hc could not regard this is ~,
.... Sion. tlat il was concluded by the
Nr"diulf Is. Trapnall, 10 How, and
81 ~. Nichols, ) Wall.
...si not >ce the force of the ar"u-
'-'...' were made upon the other side.
'.. pniU' that one Legislature could
r~.,.l would bind another-indcpen-
. r.. consideration that this question
.nrl IN the cases above referred
Il no difficulty in pronolmcipg
y Ur9n general principles. These
m. v,r" UuGrniahlv contracts, and con-
A'-a III" legislature had authority to
H.. Legislature WAS the general
f -, state. acting, a> it We're. under
,E.f power oi attorney. and upon the
&C.,. 'HiuciIl"> governing such cases. The
,Gu,i aii,j" hy the >tipulationS which
..,. W know OF no principle which
- t.,.c i State. any more than III indi-
). L. IN exemption from the perform
- >'!"lnn agreements.
- :at tie point that the Constitution re-
'@. application Of the capitation tax
, ,r.n"} fund. and il this tax We're col
. .H .uuron> the school fund could get
,a'"-" from it. and. therefore, that the
a.. .ti Itself Was unconstitutional. hc
1T himself unable 10 perceive any
=" b.. The plain meaning OF the Con-
'...1 I-, that a sum equal to such sum aS
T. 9 th" discretion OF the Legislature be
f1am c;;pitation tux should be applied
.rhopi Nnd. If. therefore, the LegiS-
. .,~'>~''d q tax for any year which
. ''" TO larger than the sum of the cou-
.a 80 redeemed llIat year, and part OF
..- 'muitatiUm tux, it would be inclln-
Hn The Legislature TO lay Il further tax
.ictrl III money Cu,nl to what il had
'r2! H.. t.,Ni!ati"n tax.
"4- II opinion that tie act Of Assem-
i '@5' -r;lE1lly known Us the funding
.....''l.- !; d contract between the state
'2 ha'lvIs OF the bonds OF coupons is
~ ljrtue Of il. The only question
:. ulA T., raised was whether such con
ni'.u rIf"S-tlat is, whether it was
.r.uUA,t IL the General Assembly had
. .' l't". In hi> opinion there could
.,r.ita> 10 this power. The General
+. bad power to do anything and to
. .H.y contract which wa> not prohibited
~ja'r Constitution.
"a. ,.,~ uf Woodruff rS. Trapnall. and
5.u -. Nichols. before cited, were
-.r authorities in favor OF this power
'"'l' rcqEirrd 10 support this PROPOSE
la,-1 IL" State had become sole stock
,r.' ~ttic banks. and had provided that
@'.- .-%lrd hy those banks should always
Ne - ~ yaymcnt of taxes. The Su-
'.mr; ut he United States said in
O. .'.., that the coiiiract adhered to each
..,", II 'L"rc had been Imprinted ON
..~t.a! each hi!i the words. This bill l.
Il III payment Oi State dues
,a., cl,r iur bonds and coupons were
= - It" state herself, and her law re-
q. .. WAS in fact the case. that each bond
.ugon ~hullj,i hay. printed. on the face
ra:. Tie coupons would always be re-
=" IN PAYMENT Of debts, demands, dues,
. s.- i', the state.
iud.c allowed sixty days, within
80 TIA" IN appeal may he taken.
..>. ruid \ Ci:rriucton. General Brad
Johnson. ana William l.. Royal, were
,ul tor the plaintiff. The Attorney
nj and Judge Crump represented the