Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1881-02-02
Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser

city, lila obligation &c its creditors wss impaired,
and. however great is power of taxi IN, it must
be exercised, being a political agency Of the
state. u subcrdinst!cn 10 the inhibition of the
federal constitution against legislation impair.
ing the obligation Of contracts. Until The inter.
est was pse no act ofthe state or OF it's politcal
subdivisions, exercising legislative power by its
authority, could work an exoneration from what
wss promised 10 the creditor. This decision
would be decisive hero. but The present cass is
still stronger for the creditor. The funding set
msdo tho bonds issued under it payable to order
or bearer r, and made tho coupons payable to
Dearer. They were, so far, distinct and inde-
pendent contracts that they could be separated
from each other and Transferred 10 ditYsren!
hands
In Clark vs. Iowa City, we had cc,asion to
speak OF bcLds of municipal bodies, and private
corporations, having Similar coupons. and
the language there used is applicable here, We
said that most of such bonds 'are issusd in or.
der to raise funds for works of large e1!ont and
cost, and their psy meht is therefore, msda al
distals periods, not u1frequently beyond q
quarter OF century. Coupons for different in.
stamehts "f Inttrrst are usually attached 10
such bonds il the expectation that they will be
ns'd 81 they mature, however distant the period
fixed for the payment CT the principal These
coupons, when severed from the bonds, are ne.
gC!lsble and psss by delivery. They then cease
TO be irci5en!s Of the bonds and become in fact
| indepeLdsnt Claims; they do not lose their vs.
lid!y If Tor any cause tho bonds are cancelled OF
| paid before maturity, nor their negotiable cha
rscler Nor their ability to support separate &C.
tivns. They then possess the essential attributes
OF commercial paper as has bean held BY thi.
ccu:t in repeated Instances" GO WALL. $50
Hero also, the coupons held by the petitioner
| were diilinct contracts imposing teparate obi
cations upon tho state. He wSs not the owner
Of The bonds 10 which they had bsen originally
/ In hSn C.na a
| discharged from all liability on those bonds Of
though they lad mover been connected with
| them. And turely it is moi necessary 10 argue
| that an Get which requires the holder OF one
\ contract to pay the taxes lsvied upon another
contract held by skirsnRer, cannot be sustained
Sucn an act Is nots legitimate exercise of the
! taxing power; it undertskes to impose upon one
! the burden which should fall. if at all, upon
another
The funding .ct stipulated that the coupons
should be receivable for all taxes and dues tc
| the tts!e, tia: is. for taxes and dues owing By
| the holders Of the coupons. ard for their full
| amount; and upon this pledee the holders Of TIT
bonds OF the state surrendered Them and TOOL
new bonds for two thirds cf their amount. Tht
| act OF 1876 declares that the coupons shall mo-
/ he thus received for taxes and dues owing by
| the holders of them for their foil amount. bu
Only Tor such porli)n as may remain after tax
subsequently, levied upon the bonds. TO which
|
| though the bonds be held by other psrtips. i
| this set does not impair the contract with III:
oldhoder-who was suthCrz ,d to transfer tc
others the coupons with this qualify of rtceigs
biity for taxes anne1ed-and also the contract
With tho bearer fthe coupon written on its face
that il should be received for all taxes 10 the
| state-lt is fiji cult TO see in what way the con
| tract with either would beimpaired. even though
| The tax on the bond should equal the whole face
of its coupons If, against the express terms o.
| the cottract the state can take portion of the
| interest in the thspo of q tax on tho bJnd, il
NAV st its pleasure take the whole.
We ere clear that this &C. of Virginia Of 1916
(soc ll7) requiring the tax On her bonds, issuad
un Ter The funding act Of Nal Gu 30Lh, 1871 to b
| deducted from the coupons originally attached
to them when rendered in payment of taxes OF
other dues to the state cannot be applied to
coupons separated from the bonds, and held by
diheren! owners. without impairing The contrsc,
With s1ch to1dholders contained in the funding
act, ard the contract with the bta.cr of tho cou
pons 1t fol(ows, tina! tho petitioner was entitled
| TO writ OF mandamus 10 compel the treasurer
| CT the city Of Richmond to receive the coupons
teb deted to him 10 payment Of taxes due iht
state ior their full smluot.
The judgment CT the supreme court Of appeal
denying the writ must. therefore be reversed
and the casa romsnded fJr further prc C ,eding:
in sccoIdarc! with this opinio0; and it wa7 GO
| ordered