The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-02-03


ION Of the supreme Court OF The United
states Ia this already celebrated case.
IL has bcea argued that no question was
before the court except as TO the conslitn'
tiouality Of the act OF Assembly imposing
tax on coupons IN the hands Of purchasers;
Int the reader OF The opinion will see that
the court declares In substance that the tax
on the coupons cannot be deducted from
the amount OF any taxpayers coupons II
being the tax.colcctor's duty 10 receive
them at their full face value. whether pre-
sen,ed nv the owner OF the bond or any,
body else.
IL has been also argued that whatever the
curt said not bearing directly upon tue
point above stated was mere o6ttes d'ctu'n
Blu, as the opinion Is the all but unanimous
opinion OF the court Uhere being only one
dissenting Juslice) it may be set down Us
certain that whatever opinion the court mas
expressed In this case will DE iepe''eu
whenever cases ilectly presenting Tue
poin,s shall come before the court. We
don't think anybody would pay a lawyer
10 undertake TO get the court to express
different opinion.
/; will be seen that The court repeatedly
mentions the funding act OF 1871. II that
act had cen deemed unconstitutional, the
court would have been compelled to take
Judicial notice of the fact, and TO have de-
MED The appeal o! HARTMAN for that reason
Tbs IL did not do. Clearly, then, the
a. cd
constitutional. That tribunal would not
stuItify itself by deciding that binding
contract could be raised by an unconsiitu-
tiona act Of Assembly. After stating the
provision. Of the funding act OF 1871, the
court expressly says:
"a contact was thus contaminated be-
tween the State and the holders of The new
bonds. and all subst quent holders OF the
coupons, from the obligation OF when she
could not, without their consent, release
herself by any subsequent legislation"
The contract is here stated TO be under
the much-abuspd funding act OF 1871, and
no. only so. but is expressly declared TO he
a contract with the hotierS Of the bonds.
The claim that the holders Of the coupons
are the only parties protected bv the Su'
preme Court, or rather by The Constitution
of The United States, rs thus proved to be
uniouuded. The language above quoted
shows that the holder Of the coupons de-
riyes his right TO exemption from taxation
from "ibe holders OF the new bonds" The
holders OF The new bonds transfer their
right TO exemption TO "tbe subsequent
Ill - . no
the opinion
This rtceivability OF coupons for such
taxes and dues was written on their ltne
bond. face, and accompanied them into
whatever hands they passed. IL constituted
their chief value, and was the main c0Dsid.
Grafton offered 10 The holders Of The old
bonds TO Surrender them and accept nem
bonds TOR t,co thirds OF their amount"
This receyabilily. therefore, belongs to
the coupons on the bonds in the bands OF
ANYBODY. Language could not easily be
palmer. This is one of the points which
the RI adjuslers say were not before tue
court; but will any sane man doubt that
the court has al eady expressed wnai It's de-
clsion would be II 1t had the point be-
fore III
The Supreme Court makes express refer
ence TO the Virginia case Of Anfoni Us.
Wright. 1t repeats what our Court OF
Appeals decided in that case. 1t quotes
from that decision what the Supreme Count
OF the United States calls "words If Wis.
DOM" And that case of 1ntont Us. Wright
is one OF the cises alluded to ia the follow
ing sentence
These decisions of the Federal aud State
courts dispose substantially OF the question
presented in the case at bar"
II that isn't affirming the decision OF our
Court OF Appeals in The ease OF Antont Us.
WRIGHT, it would be bard to find words
that would affirm it. II is The strongest kind
OF approval. 1t says that that case and
others "dispose substantially" OF the ques-
ton presented VI the case OF Hartman rs.
Greenbow-" substantially" because the
exact point was not the same; but dispose
OF it because the decision is sound law.
Il will be seen, too, that The tax Is tax
on the bonds, although it is constantly
spoken of here in Virginia as tax on the
coupons. The Supreme Court states the
case accurately when 1t says that it Is "taX
on bonds" which was attempted TO be " de-
Quoted from the coupons held by other par
ties.o This last WAS the real point before
the court, but, as We have seen, that fri
bunal spoke its mind on other questions
very freely.
The court says:
The power OF the State TO impose tax
upon her obligations is a subject upon which
there has been a difference OF opinion
AMONGST jurists and statesmen"
This language means that even when the
bonds are not exempt by the terms Of the
conlract from taxation, there is difference
o. opinion as TO whether it would or would
not b. violation OF the contract TO tax
them.
As 20 the rights Of the bondbolder under
the funding net OF 1871, the Supreme Court
says:
II this act taxing tue bonds through
the caupon>] does not impair the contract
scith the bondhOtder. lchO eUdS authorized 10
transfer TO others the coupons aoih thtS
quality Of receiudbiiity for td1eS dnne1ed-
and also tue contract with the bearer of The
coupon written on lis face that II should be
received for all taxes to the Staie--il is diff
cult 10 see in what way the contract with
either would be impaired, even though The
tax on the bond should equal the whole face
of its00uDons."
Here ibe Supreme Court repeats that Tue
contract which i,s decision protects was