Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1880-04-30

e. there IVES actually rendered 10 money SLIP,
WHICH txcseded The amount of the capitatiou
AK. But ia the case of Antoni vs.. Wright the
coupons were rendered in paymen. OF proper
y tax, and it WIS commended that ono tenth Of
he property tax wss dedicated to the support
Of Il lubEc schotls. and that the requirement
hat coupons should be receivable il payment |
OF so much OF the property tex as was dedicated |
TO tho public schools was unconstitutional. 60 |
that question was dire city in issue. and it was !
decided BY this court that the coupons were re |
ceiVable 10 payment of the property tax, aud
that the sct OF 1871 was not uucopsti uticnal on
that ercuod. Tue respondent in this csse rsi,es
precisely the sama gus ion, and justi6es bis re,
tusal to r Give the coupons on the ground that
the cot OF 2S;h of March. 1879, was uEcouatitu.
tiona, 10 making the coupons receivable 10 pay.
of such texas, 10 which he virtually undertakes
to reverse the decision Of the court to whom the
power aud duty is assigned BY the Constitution
to aGi udge the case, and foalIy to settle and de-
ter nine whether the law is constitutional or not.
Some yeErs after the d. cl,i)n Of Antoui w.
Wright reference was made to that case in the
caae of Wise Brothers and the case CT Msury
(224 Grattspl, when the c)rrf Ctpess of that de-
csion was recognized
Agaio, 10 the recent cle Ct Clarke vs.. Tyler,
TO-, Sergeant 80 Grsntln-l34), the same
cJrs ituWoDal question wss a2eln rs,s,d as to the
recelVabllly OF the cIup0ls 10 payment IF hoes.
which, 1t was drSued, were appropriated ty the
CoLstitu'iou to tie public free schools, AID that
the &c; OF 1871. 10 msking ccupous receivable
10 payment OF Ii lcs, was q VIC alton of the Con
stltutlOo, and this court agsin resf6rued lis
decisions 10 Aotobi vs.. WIis ht, both upon the
hearing nod on the motion ttr tehesripg.
We are OF opinion, therefore, that tho qles,iou
raised BY respondents second reason is 10
l9n2tr AI op;r question. L. ID res dcjulicntu,
aud ;1eE1 Is roiGl0g III tho aDsHcr uI the re-
sD0utca', or is Ike argument OF his couosel,
that has created ID tbe MINDS Of the Jurt, even
Cou5t, IS to tho c0rr Cess OF its former re-
pcsLed apd well considered decisions of The
sa:rc 41esil DOB, which respondent fas Thought
TrCpGr 10 raise lc lis scc5rd rcasoo ia ds;iGc,-
nJn 81 hls reiussl 10 obey The !av aud to receive
the Coupon: aud tho D,ouey tcn!rrud by plaiG.
Til IN pal lea; ct ts ttX.S. deem 1t ulrs
+s,Ey 10 rcl.ers'G the reasons which III tain US
10 this Decision: they arc fully set cct 10 the
"riuioni de'ipG;ed in tho irisl CT hato, vs,
Wright, lid % Ihl fnGti3a IGr a rvheariae 10
"hlrh hog to ro'rr, aud n!ao To tho opinion Of
Jntse CbNFiin. aud as to my opinion 10
Ciaske vs. Tyler, sergeant Those cpiuinos
iu:i? y;oflcafe the decision OF this court ia A,
''i Vs. - iiShr. tl'EtlI, tutl WeT5 COICUrGtu 10
D. y ~ rItY oi all the Judges elccea 10 he
"2nrt. which ~ nec9ssery under section = sriicl4
e VI thr CONSTITUTION TO dcc!sre spy lag mil
aGd v0i6 tY reason Ct Its rcrUFraEgc 70 tic
FItrsal Constitution. TT ;l,c Cors,i.u:inn II this
Safe. And co.'s. unGrtly th'En decisions, hy
shre" cat OF the fiy2 Judges 81, ecd 70 the Iurt,
90 tstEhl-h tho constitutional ty CT tho act
which makca coupons Tor ,hc o,eres$ acc1ure
Nc the hrlds OF tie Gti;r, AZ AID alter their
maturity, rro:lvstlH 10 pa> mcut oil taxes, debts,
dues and dsmand. duo the Stale, AID ouiy enc
"f he judges OUT OF Tho five elrcfrd to he
oInrt i".'dlng, AZ c0Gsc'n,iously as his brethren
held to the contraIy,th:t no said ct 10 that re-
Hp' OF, Is repugnsnt to thu GoDstitulO n e the
STATE. cannot declare sad pCt to be null gna
VOID b2 reason thereof; and m, lrity OF all tho
judges elected to he court dt Gliding that the act
ul IN oil March, 1872. which virtually prohibi.
t. d the ficels y ho bad charge of the c,llsc-
ton CT the revenues IT the State to receive
coupons 10 payment of taxes was pu'l ADD void
by reason OF Its rApugnancs 10 the Fsdcral Con.
slusloo and tho Constitution OF the St,te, not
altbs'sDdlrg the opinion of only ono of tha fivs
judges elected to the curt to the contrary, isa
constitutional avoidance and anuulment of said
act, go far as it was 50 declared, to be uu-
constitutional, null, and void l beg TO refer to
my opinion In Clarke vs.. Tyler, sergeant. which
was concurrcd)n by Judges Christian and Bueks,
thougn mat does not appear from the report of
The Case, for the reasons which need not be reit-
Grated here which think fully sustsns the de-
clsion OF the court. especially upon the question
again raised by respondents in this case, or
shows the fslacy of sl the objections urged to
TIE const'tut onaliy ofthe Law upon tn at ground,
and winch iortltes The reasoning of Judge Chris
Ian IN his able opinion in the came case stain
lbg the same result, 10 which beg also to refer.
Upon the whole, the court is Of the opinion
that the rule nsi must be made absolute, and
thai q msndamus be Issued against the said ohm
T.. Massey, Auditor, commanding him ID re.
celve the coupons aud tbs money rendered by
William Williamson in payment cf his tsxts
nereln before mentioned, and that upon the re-
celpt OF said coupons and money he execute to
him 8 receip! in full discharge of said taxes.
Judges Christian and Burks concurred in the
opinion.
Judge Staples delivered an opinion dissenting
school fund.
In explaining why he did not sit in this case
and had not sat in others of similar import,
Judge Moncure, president of the court, ex plain.
cd that all bis possessions consisted of State
ponds, which he Invested his money in wears
ago. lie did 80 because he believed that all the
property OF the Commonwealth and the honor
OF every man and woman within its limits wss
bound for her debts. He dill not believe. he
ssld, that bis State would ever repudiats her in
looIedness, ror permit him to lose his money.
Political.
Tho Penn lVauia Damocr,t;o 0,,ro,i;,