The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1878-05-02
Tax on Coupons.


The question SO deliberately and ably ar
gueG at the bar was upon . petition for a
the city of Richmond, rendered to Green
how, the City Treasurer, in payment of his
State taxes, coupon for $50 cut from a
bond Of the State of Virginia, but of which
Hartman was not the holder. Greenhow
refused to receive this coupon at its face
value, but insisted upon deducting there
from the tax prescribed by acts of the As
sembly, and thereupon Hartman applied to
this court for mand0mus. A rule was is
sued by this Court against Greenhow, the
City Treasurer, to show cause why a man
damus should not be awarded An answer
TO the rule was filed for Greenhow by the
Attorney General. Upon this rule and an
swer the case was argued. The Court has
considered the case with that elaboration
which the gravity OF the question demand
ed. have now to announce that the Court
stands equally divided-Judge Staples and
Burks being of opinion that the mandamus
should be refused; Judge Anderson and
myself being of opinion that peremptory
nanddmus should be awarded. The result
is that by a divided Court the rule must be
entered as the judgment of the Court.
1t is a general rule of this Court that where
the Court is equally divided no opinion is
written or filed with the record, but the
questions involved in this case are of such
grave public Importance each Of the judges
reserves the right to write out and file with
the record his respective views.
, In consequence of this position of the
court the collectors throughout the Com
monwealth will continue to collect the tax.
In the case of Clark VS.. Tyler, where was
involved the question of the receivablity Of
the coupons for fines, Judge Christian de-
livered the opinion OF the court, declaring
that all dues to the Commonwealth, in
Guiding fines, could be paid in coupons.
Judges Anderson and Burks concurred with
Judge Christian, Judge Staples dissenting
and Judge Moncure not sitting. In that
opinion it was announced substantially that
coupons were not taxable, and that SO far as
Virginia was concerned they were as ''good
as gold" 1t was to get a more direct and
formal announcement from the court that
the case of Hartman VS.. Greenhow was made
up by the representatives of the bondhold-
ers, doubtless under the belief that the de-
cision would be made by the court as in the
case of Clark VS.. Tyler, that coupons were
non. taxable, and concurred in as in that
case. Judge Burks, however, it seems, to
some extent modified his views, aud now
agrees with Judge Staples, at least in part
of the dissenting opinion he expressed in
the Clark-Tyler case.
1t has been suggested that the court being
equally divided, and no decision rendered,
it would be proper to take it up to the
United States Supreme Court. But Mr..
Royal, who argued the point for the bond
holders in this case, declines to proceed
further unless the bondholders themselves
unite to take it up. The fact is they do not
want it taken up; certainly not if the whole
scope of the questions involved in and grow
ing out of the Funding Bill are to be consid-
cred. Judge Staples, in his dissenting opin-
ion in the case of Anotoniv VS.. Wright, gave it
as his belief that should the question of the
right OF the State to control its own reve-
nues come up before that tribunal, there
could be but one result, and that the asser-
ton of the sovereign right of the State to
direct and appropriate her revenues.
Notwithstanding that Judge Burks has
substantially changed his position on this
question, and that 70 decision practically
was rendered, leaving the act of the Leg
islature in force taxing coupons, the Fund
ing bill papers, are claiming that the re-
adiusters have gotten "another backsct :"
and the associated press agents telegraphed
it all over the country that the failure to
render decision by the court was defeat
of the re-adjusters. Nothing could be more
gratuitous and unfounded, and it only shows
what devices are resorted to for the purpose
of creating a prejudice against the people
Of Virginia, and in favor OF the bondhold-
ers.
The question involved in it is as to the
right of the State to tax property, real and
personal, in the State; and this right ap-
piled to the coupons, as now recognized
by act of the Legislature, would give the
power, by changing the Constitution, to
tax them out of existence.
The reckless disregard Of the truth by
the Funding bill apologists, and the fla
grant and persistent misrepresentation Of
the people of Virginia, ON all occasions,
where misrepresentation can be edged in,
will have its effect before long, and teach
the people that they can expect no con-
cession or compromise from class of men
who cling to the letter of the law, al
though ruin and bankruptcy should follow.
1t would be far more rational and SEN
sible, instead Of haunting the people with
the legal meshes the astute lawyers who
framed the Funding bill have thrown around
them, were the bondholders to determine
to accept the proffer made by the Legis-
lature in the compromise bill, and settle
the complications on the terms there pro
posed. 1t is the most advantageous propo-
sition that will ever be made, and if it is not
accepted, and the assurance thereof given
by the time the Legislature meets again,
different temper will be manifested, and
less favorable conclusion formulated.
The bankrupt law just voted out Of exis-
tence, so far as Congress could do it, was