Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-04-06


of this Court for wit of habeas corpus. The
petition and the record Herewith lied show
that the petitioner (Ciarke) is confined 10 jail
under an execution (capias pro fne) Issued up
on judgment of the Hastings Court OF the
civ of Richmond for the sum of $50. the hoe
assessed by said court, and S22 05 the costs OF
nroseeu,ion on behalf of tho Commonwealth.
It is further shown that th5 petitioner ten
dered to James M...Tyler, Sergeant OF the city OF
Richmond, "a coupon which was dne and past
m aturity for $50, which said coupon was out
from bond OF the State Of Virginia issued un
der the provisions of the act OF Assembly, pass
ID March 80 1871, com monty koowo as the
funding bill, and the sum Of $22 05 in money,
that being the amount of costs.
The CITY Sergeant refused to receive the coN
pons rendered In payment OF the hoe imposed
by the court; and thereupon Clarke applied 10
this court tor writ of habeas corpus, and 10.
lists upon bis right to pay the h0e assessed
against him by the Hastings Court in coupon
of bond of the State; aud that upon such pay
ment, with the costs OF prosecution, be Is en-.
titled to his discharge from further imprlsoo-
ment.
This record, therefore, presents for our COZ
Sdera,ion the single question:, whether hoe
imposed for violation Of law can be discharged
10 coupons. or Wn.ther 1t can only be de
msn1ed aud paid IN money!?
This is the same Question: which was elaoo
ratey argued at the January term OF this court
iu the case of Tyler, Sergeant. vs.. Taylor,
Auitor." That case was argued upon petit
compel the Auditor Of Public Accounts to re
ceve from the Sergeant of the city OF Rich
mond certain coupons which had been received
H. H,o noooH
Mayo for a crimioal cffruse.
10 that case this court u unanimously held that
the writ of maudamus could not be issued
against the Auditor of Public Accounts, be
cause lie was not the public officer whose Gu'y
1t was, urder the law, TO receives 6ue collected
by he City Sergeant, and declaring that this
court could ouly exercise its * raordinary ju
risdlctlon by W,y of mandamus TO compel q
public off rr 10 discharge d1ty which the law
i'm posed on hana aud not on another. And 10
ssuuch as tue City Treasurer, and not the Au'
ditor of Public AocuuuLs, was the public officer
whose duty il was to receive all hnes collected
by The CITY Sergeant, the rule WAS discharged
and the case dismissed without deciding the
question 90 lis merits.
Iu that case it was said, and is here repeat
ed This court Is always ready ADD willing to
decide, to the best OF it's ability, oil questions,
however important or difficult, or however they
may affect public or private interests. which
are properly brought before it, no matter how
great or far reaching may be the Responsible
ties it must assume 10 such decision. But the
court is not wl!iog, nor is it any part OF its lu
dicia functions, to decide questions outside OF
the case before it, aud thus constitute itself a
moot court, to determine abstract questions -
The question argued 10 the case of Tyler,
Sergeant. vs. Taylor, Auditor" did not arise
upon the pleadings in the cause. and the court
did not (for the reasons stated 10 its opinioO)
feel called upon to decide 40 abstract question.
But the same question now does arise properly
upon the records 10 this case, aud the court is
now prepared to meet the question and assume
all the responsibilities which may attach to its
decision, however it may affect Individual or
public rights, private or political questions.
But the question We have to determine (how.
ever it is sought to be connected with questions
which ar: the subject, uubappily, OF political
agitation) is purely LEGAL QUESTION, to be
determined upon well defined legal principles,
and the rules of construction universally recog.
uized as applicable to the statute laW. 1t all
depends upon the true construction to be given
to the ID section Of the act approved March
80. 1871, entitled IAN act to provide for the
funding and payment of the public debt. p
This section after declaring that the owners of
any of the bonds, stocks, or interest certificates
heretofore issued by this State may
fund two thirds of the amount of the same
10 six per centum coupons or reg.
istered bonds of this State. g.. &c., contains
the following provision: The bonds shall be
made payable to order or bearer aud the oou
pons to bearer at the Treasury Of the State,
and bonds payable to order may be exchanged
for bonds payable to bsarer, and registered
bonds may be exchanged for coupon bonds. or
vtice versa. at the option of the holder. The
coupons shall be payable semi annually and re-
ceiv4ble at and after maturity for all taLeS,
debts, dues. and demands, due the State which
shall be 80 expressed on their face The only
question, then. We have to determine is whether
fines posed for violation Of law are included
within the terms of the statute? say this is
the only question We have to determine, be-
cause the question Of the consttutonalty Of
the act above referred to, known as the funding
act has already been determined by this court.
The case of Autooi vs. Wright (22 Grattao)
settles this question. The Same arguments
against its corssi,utiunality made 10 this case
were urged in that. | refer to that case, aud
adopt its principles ADD reasoning as clear
and conclusive exposition Of the law, and am of
opinion that this decision of the court declaring
the constitutionality OF the act OF March 80,
1871, and deolarog that any act Of the LegisIa
ture 10 confc: with the provisions of that act,
50 far as it may forbid the collecting officers of
the State to receive 10 payment OF taxes aud
other demands of the State anything else than
gold or silver coiu, Uoited States Treasury
notes, or notes of the uatiooal banks of the
United States" must be held to be 40 act
"lmpairog the obligation Of a Contract AMI
therefore unconstitutional and VOID This de
cision of Acton vs.. Wright was recognized aud
reafigu 10 Wise Brothers vs. Rogers Audi
tor aud Maury & Co. vs.. same (24tb Grattss).
and must now DO held to be the settled law Of
this State. 1t is not necessary, therefore. aud
Indeed it would DE vain and useless task, to
attempt to 20 over again the reasons which
governed this Court 10 coming to the coDoiu
sious then reached aud firmly adhered to ever
since. Gao only say for myself that after a
careful consideration of all the views whob
have been presented on this question the opio
ion # Judge B,udD 10 Anloni vs. Wright is
, lpoiI ohio opd cnpolnsivo eynn.iri,n of RI q