The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1881-10-27
Tennessee VS.. sneed.
From the Richmond whig.l


of the Warrenton bar This opinion review
our State Debt to some extent, and then ex
amlnes the unanimous decision of the Supreme
Court OF the United States in the celebrated
case OF Tennessee VS.. Sneed, clearly and abb,
showing the application of that decision tt
our state Debt and its tay-coupons. We AGAR
give our readers that portion of "Fauquiers'
paper which treats directly OF the decision
and its application here Read il and you viii
be convinced:
have thus for been occupied in showing
the evils OF the Funding Bill which very few
will question, and the difficulty of deteatins
it,, which no one doubts. And it may bt
thought that what has been written nigh
very well be omitted. My object has bee nte
show that it would require our united exer
tions if we ever made this old man of the ses
lose his hold upon our Threats. No dsuadeo
c0araSeS, but the united and concurrent action o.
the people OF Varysasa, soselding ALL THE POWER
OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA goLetter these poao-
ers are gested IN her erecutice, Legislature, or he,
jataca servants, are requisite If ace qoo,ld ACCOM-
pzish this task
propose now to consider the case, the name
Of which stands at the head of this communi-
cation and my efforts shall be to set out the
principles which underlie that case in such a
lildIlutI tll6IIl IDleIffyIt)ic 10 I'M
professional readers, if any such will honor me
by perusal of this article.
In the year 1888 the State of Tennessee
chartered bank known as the Bank of Ten
nessee," and in the 18th section of the act OF
incorporation it was provided that the bills OF
said bank should be receivable at the Treasri-
~ of the State, and by all tax-coTlectors and
other public officers in all payments for taxes
and other moneys due the State"
After the war, the State of Tennessee find
ing her revenues very much reduced, sought to
repeal this section of the charter, and law
was enacted which did repeal it, But the
holders of these bank bills carried the matter
to the courts, and got along very badly indeed
before the courts of the State, but moth
ing daunted they carried their case by ap-
peal to the Supreme sCourt of the United
States and that court reversed the Tennessee
courts and held that the provisions of the
charter created valid contract between the
State and the holder Of the notes of the bank,
whoever that holder might be.
Mark the similarity of the contract made bv
the State of Tennessee and that made by the
State of Virginia, and it will be at once ap-
parent that the authority of the case of Fur
man VS.. Nichols controlled the Virginia Court
OF Appeals in Antoni VS.. Wright Observing
the similarity Of the contracts of the two
OtdtGo anu Lut pOSItlOu vi lCHuGSS6C 1dDOflIlg
under the same evils as those which now affilct
us. and her condition seemed, after the decis-
ion in Furman vs. Nichols as helpless as ours
does to many OF us at this day. But the peo-
pie of Tennessee are wise in their generation
They had tried fighting against the law, and
the law was too strong for them; then they
tired fighting with the law, and it will be seen
that they were victorious.
After the case last cited was decided THE
Legislature OF Tennessee passed three acts !:
by the first of these acts, it took away the
writ of naunddnsts; that is, it said to its court
''You shall no longer have jurisdiction to Or
der my officers to receive bank bills in paw
ment OF taxes" This was its intention, its
plain meaning and its effect. So that after
this repeating act the creditor, that is the hold
er of the bank bills, could no longer get a
2ea7adanaats from her courts. But having taken
away the remedy by nsa7dan1als, the Legislature
felt that Justice required that some other rem
edy inst as GOOD shonld be given them There
fore another law was passed which. in effect
said that when a tax collector demanded taxes
of the tax payer, the latter. if he held bank
bills and wanted to paw his taxes with them
should first paw his taxes in money. under
protest. and then he MIGHT bring snit in any
court in the State having jurisdiction over the
amount, and the Judgment of the court in
favor of the holder of the bills was ut once to
be paid out of the Treasury.
Another act provided that the stax-colec-
tors should receive in payment of taxes only
the notes of the Bank OF Tennessee known as
the old issue. warrants on the Treasury lepal v
outstanding, gold, silver. National bank notes
and nothing else" 7 forgot to mention that
the war IN Tennessee was only made on the
issue of the bank subsequent to Nav 9th
1861 Therefore the old issue OF the bank
prior to that date could still be received in
paymept of taxes. BIT his does not at all
affect the principle involved Now the holders
of whateI shall call for convenience. the new
issue" felt themselves aggrieved by this legis
lation, They claimed tina; the contract of the
State, evidenced by the bills of the new is
sue" were as sacred as the old, and as much
under the protection of The United States and
the courts; and all these positions were right
ConIoehtt III tneif stfength; relying upon
the decision OF the supreme Court OF the Uni
ted olates In urIhan vs.. NICHOLS, so oiten cited
case was nlaue 10 test the validity OF TIE acts
VI TIC Ley ieia'ul1 vi iehnessee' certain
YAK payer lehueIeu 10 oheed, tne taX-gatherer,
%ioU VI tie new issue oi the pahk III payment
OF taxes: oheea refused 10 receive II The tax
payer went W the court ana asked lor man,
u'"'uS, Vi oiuerN iioln tne court, TO compel
oheeu W take ele piils. Inc court sala, mo,
I - N - - y VIZ
lature oi tennessee mas taken from me the
power 10 issue "'a'seI1ne~s Inc taxpayer
sala, lnat Is true out tney had no right TO
10 IL, anu siieif act Is s. nun ana VOID mat Is
an yeiy wen, eaiu .he court, IL IL hau hoV at
, inc SAINT gwen remedy, not only as good'
ou. uet'o, 'nan .ne one ~ .ook away; put N
asluon 10 yuu nase pellecl renleuy, .ee re-
peains 'no ieleuy oy "e w Is lawlul. 80
uav 1an H. ~. ~ iellei neie' out mus. oiin
yoai su,. a ame payer, hot sa.lsheu WIN
u. tnis soi oonolus,so .eas1naoe tooh ms case
" ,u the Sooiv ~ iennessee' Mneie ne
h n uni 1.r ~ unaoa.eu coniiuence
ihe 1Rpited State and ~ ,ne oouls y.
Tannessee We SnaaS . sa;S '1s - .o e''sv "
worth know;rS an5 ' ,,nda un1n wy W. w.
,rosant cr's;s - ,r aHu'' 9'"nu''s l" 'i'e
pioS o.i '''i'ne
Inc nrsl proposition which it decides is that
a state mas absolute control over the remedy ;
mat is TO say, over the mode OF enforcing a
contract; ana may enlarge, limit, or alter The
remedy, provided always land this is the only
limitation on the powerl it does not deny a
remedy, or so emoarrass 1t with conditions
ana restrictions as 70 seriously impair the
value VI the rlght. IL declded that Whiie' as
we nave alieauy seen, Inc CONTRACT OF olale
!socn as II was then conslderlng) was as val
- "a anu olaulng as lne contrac's OF inuiauais,