New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-01-25

or otherwise in the right of person or party IN
sured, as aforesaid unless snch claimant ehan snow
TO the satisfaction of said Court that during the
ipte rebellion the sum of It's his losses IN respect
70 it's or his risks exceeded the sum OF It's or DIS
premiums other gains upon or In respect 10 snSn
war risks: and in case of any such allowance, tnS
same shall not be greater than such excess OF loss
A CHECK TO PARTIAL REPUTATION.
TEE VIRGINIA Law TAKING ITS BONDS DECLARED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME coURT--JUsTICE MILLER's DISSENT.
WASHINGTON. Jan. 24-The Legislature OF Viz
ginia passed an act, March 80, 1871, entitled. "An
act to provide for the funding and payment of the
pnbic debt" BY the provisions of this act the
State agreed that if her creditors would come for
ward and surrender to her her old bonds she would
issue to them new coupon bonds for two-thrds
of the amounts due upon the old Donos'
payable at the expiration OF thirty -four years,
with interest at per cent payable semi-annuaiIy'
the semi-annua interest to be represented by
coupons attached to the bonds which coupons
should be receivable at and after maturity in pay
ment of all taxes. debts, dues and demands due to
the State which shall be expressed on their face
For the other third the Commonwealth was to give
the bondhoder certificate setting forth that pay
ment of the amount will be provided for in accord
ance with such settlement as shall hereafter be had
between the States of Virginia and West Virginia,
in regard to the public debt of the State of Virgins
existing at the time of its Acknowledgement"
Under this act the holders of bonds of the Com
monwealth amounting to about thirty million dol
lars had funded their bonds by March, 1872 so that
at that time there out bonds of the State Tor
about twenty million dollars bearing six per cent
interest with tax receivable coupons attached. On
the 7,h of March. 1872, the Legislature OF Virginia
passed an act declaring that nothing should be re-
ceived IN payment of taxes except gold or silver
aOfn nf IInIf-
ed States National banks. In the case of Aatoni
agst. Wright, the Virginia Court of Appeals held
that this last mentioned act was unconstitutional
and void in that it impaired the obligation of the
States contract with her bond and cOupon-hoders.
On the 25th of March, 1878, the State Legisla-
ture passed an act providing that there should be
deducted from the coupons of.the funding bonds
issued under the act of 1871, when such coupons
were presented i'll ment OF any dues to the state
sum eQnal to tax of onehalf of per cent on the
market value of the bonds from winch said coupons
had been cut This act was slightly modified i'll
1874. bnt was reenacted in Its original form IN
Shortly subsequent to that time Hartman, cti-
zen and property holder OF Richmond, Va, ten
dered TO GYeenhow the tax collector OF the city, in
payment of taxes $24 in coupons cut from the fund
jns bonds and So so in money, that being the
amount of taxes due by hin to the State.
The tax collector refused receive the coupons at
their face value in payment OF Hartmans taxes on
the ground II at the act of 1876 required HIM to de-
duct from the coupons the state tax If One-haf OF
per cent. Hartman thereupOn applied to the Su-
preme Court of Appeals for writ of mandainus To
compel the tax collector to receive the SAID COUPONS
divided Court the mandamus was refused
Hartman thereupon appealed to the Supreme
written opinion rendered to-day, Justice Field,
after reviewing the history of the debt OF Virginia
and tue legislation of the State with reference
thereto. expresses the opinion of the Court sub
stance as follows:
The power OF State 70 impose tax upon her own
derenco Of opinion among jurists and statesmen. But
Whatever may be the wsest rule as to the taxamy OF
them Cannot he Withheld from the interest payable
taereS hsiS was s ss0 u ~ 4a5 WSeTs he Court
held that by legislation OF city its obligation to
n taxation in must be exercised, ueing political
agency Of the State in subordnation to the inhibition OF
the Federal Constitution against legislation lmparlng
This decision would be decisive in the present case but
the present still stronger for the creditor The
funding act the bonds issued under pa, abe TO
order or bearer and made the coupons payaDe 10 near
dependent contracts that they could be separated IRON
each other and transferred TO different hands IDS
Court has repeatedly held tia coupons have all the
essential attributes Of commercial Iaer that thty are
support separate and independent actions The coupons
held by Hartman, the petitioner were instinct contracts
Haytman not the owner OF toe bonds 10 which they
had been ORIGINALLY attached I9 his hands f1ds
ali liability on those bonds. as though they had never
Decesa to prove that an act rcGares the
nj one CONTRACT TO pay tile taxes LEVIED upon another
contract held by stranger cannot be sustalhed Such
an oct is not legitimate Of the taxing power
1t undertakes to impose upon one the burdehs wnlcn
should rail-, II at all, upon another -,
The funding stipulated that the coupons should De
receivable for all and dues to the slate tor ther
full amount aud upon this pledge the holders OF tno
bonds State surrendered them and tok new bonds
for of the amount TIE act OF 1875 declares
the shall not be thus received Tor taxes TOT
their full amount bat only for such PORTION as may
remain after subsequently levied upon the Donos
20 which they originally attacned Is deducted IL
shis aos impair the contract with the bond
coupons with the quality OF receiyaby for taxes an
nexedit difficult To see In what way II would be I'M
paired though the TAX on the bond should equal the
OF the coupon Ii. against tue express terms
forest shape of the bond. it may at It's
D,czsurc Tina Court 10 clear therefore.
Of Legs Of the State OF virginia or
1876 requiring the tax On her bonds Issued under the
fnudng March 80 1871 TO oe deducted from the
coupons originally attached 70 then wnen rendered In
payment of other dues to the STATE Is 10
In the funding act law imparing the obligation OF
contract, and that Ii 10, therefore, void
follows that the petitioner Was entteu 10 nls man
eamus to compel the Treasurer OF the CITY Oh Kcnmon
taxes for their full amount The Judgment OF the su
preme Court Of Appeals Of Virginia denying the writ H.
therefore, aud the cause demanded Tor iurhe
proceedings In accordance with this OPINION
Justice Miller expressed his dissent from the opinion
of the Court and gave his First that no Log
slsture OF State authority to bargain away the
6tates right vi taxation and second tnat IN lssIint
controversy, the Legislature OF Virginia. neither u
forms nor Dy Just inference made any contract ina
the should not be subject 10 the same
taxes rs other property taxed oy the State'
A PRETTY STORY SPOILED.
iBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE.I