Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1878-12-04
" NEW ISSUE" TENNESSEE
MONEY.
Decision Of the United States Supreme
Court in Favor of the Note Holders.
A Dissenting Opinion by Justice
Bradley.
Nashville American, Sd.

AAo0ANHs
American, Sd.
A dispatch was received from Wash
ington yesterday stating that the
United States Supreme Court had re-
versed the decision of our Supreme
Court at jackson in 1875, in the case
of Keith VS.. Clark, collector, thereby
settling the liability of the State to re-
ceive the new issue of the Bank of
Tennessee for taxes. This case was
brought under the auspices of Mr.. Ne
Phail Smith shortly after the decision
of the State Supreme Court in the
case Of Bloomstein VS.. Sneed, collec-
tor. The case was an attempt to COM
pei the money to be received by man
damus when first rendered to the col |
lector. The act of 1873 has provided |
that the mandamus should not be al
lowed. But it was urged that to take
away the mandamus was to weaken the
note holders remedy so as to impair
the obligations of the States contract.
But the United States Supreme Court
held that as the act taking away the
mandamus allowed the taxpayer, after
payment in par funds under protest, to
sue the collector, providing for a war
rant from the controller in the tax
payers favor if successful in the suit,
it could not be regarded as impairing
the obligation of the States contract,
as the substituted remedy was sub
stantial one.
The second suit was brought from
an apprehension that the first might
fall upon the point upon which it did
actually fall
All the questions arising out Of the
new issue have now been settled in its
favor.
In the bank case, in the State Su-
preme Court it was settled that the
statute of limitations did not apply,
and that the new issue could not be
shown to have have been issued in aid
ofthe rebellion.
The State Supreme Court, in the
Bloomstein and in the subsequent
Keith case, held that section y Of the
bank charter, obligating the State to
take the money for taxes, could be re-
garded as subsisting in 1861 (when the
notes were issued) only through the
re-enactment or tacit recognition of
the insurrectionary State government,
and that that government 5 pledge was
not protected by the constitution Of
the United States against Reputation
by the restored State government
The United States Supreme Court
has now rejected this view of the mat
ter.
1t may be that the holders of new
issue, content with having ithe statu,
Of their money as ax-paying materia
established, will now abandon the as
sets of the bank to the depositors.
The counsel for the new issue were
, Messrs. r. McPhail Smith, Philip
Phillips and George Hoadly
The following synopsis Of this i'm
portant decision was furnished from
: Washington blythe associated press:
No. 67-John Keith, plaintiff in
) error, against Il. A. Clark, collector
/ etc, in error, to the Supreme Court Of
' Tennessee. The principal question
I involved in this cause is whether the
State Of Tennessee is obliged to re-
ceive, in paymenet of taxes, the now
deprecated notes of the Bank of Ten
! nessee, as it bound itself to do by sec.
: tion II of the charter of the bank in
! ! 1888, or wheter it can repudiate that
! contract as to the notes issued after
: May 6, 1861, on the ground that the
. State government was then forcibly
seized by insurgents and its powers
usurped. The cause raises several
Federal questions of interest and i'm.
e portancc. The court, in the opinion
e delivered by Justice Miller, hold,
e that the theory that there can be two
: different etities, called States-withir
= the same geographical limits-One loya
and one rebellious-is fanciful anC
untenable; that there never has beer
t more than one political society il
] existence as an organized State Of
i Tennessee, from the day of its admis
: sion into the Union in 1896 to the
S present hour; second, that there is ne
e foundation for the theory which main
S tains such a separation Of secedins
t States from the National government
as to rebellion is void and invalid
unless ratified by a positive law en-.
Y acted since their restoration third
/ that there is nc evidence in this case
: to prove that the issue of notes by the
8 Bank of Tennessee, after May 6, 1861
was made for the purpose of giving
i. aid and comfort to the insurgents ol
\ in violation of the constitution aRC
: laws of the United States, and that
t. consequently the contract which the
y State made in 1884 to take the
notes of the Bank of Tennessee,
in payment Of taxes is and hai
g all the time been under tht
! protection of the Federal constitu
ton. The judgment of the Supreme
Court Of Tennessee is therefore, re-
versed, and the cause remanded for
further proceedings in accordance
n with this opinion. Justice BRADLEY
4 delivered dissenting opinion, de
}. nying the assumption that the govern
4 ments Of seeded States were Lawful
Q governments The Chief Justice ais,
s delivered a dissenting opinion, il
4 which it was maintained that the or
s dinance OF Tennessee mpalidating th,
d contract of 1888 as far as the new is.
e sue of bank notes is concerned, wa
n an authorative declaration by the peo
/; pie of the State, who were cognizan
l. Of the facts that the issues in question
o after May 6, 1861, were in furtheranc
1t of the rebellion and, therefore, no
e entitled to constitutional protection.
,s ---e--