The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-02-19
Inexcnsable Rlunderg.


The Rockingham Register Of The I7,b in'
slant has che following paragraph
THE Richmond Dispatch and some otner
papers have gone so far rs to say 'hat tuis
decision denied the right oil the state 10 ,sA
the bonds Of the State. This Is paipso's
incorrect"
OF all The incxcusablc blunders that ever
cagse under our notice. the above statement
Is the least excusable. In the Dispatch OF
February lth-iwo weeks ago-we sa'd,
and we said Il 10 commenting upon para
graph from the Rockingham Register, tna'
tho decision did not release the state bonds
from taxation. We added what follows I'D
this paragraph, that the consols aud pee'e's
held In Virginia are taxable, because tue 'c'
under which they were issued does not pro-
vide for their exemption from iaSa'ioh'
The Supreme Court Of the Unlted S'a'cs
SAYS there Is a difference OF opinion amongst
iurists as to whether such BONDS can OF eau
moi he taxed: but as IL did mol ueciac
against the right to tax them. they may !e'
be taxed. We have very little doubt, how
ever. that n the question were brought
before n that court would decide that they
cannot righifulIy be taxed; aud we regard
II a. certain that that court viii not allow
Virginia bonds held in other States 10 be
taxed in vrginia. The Government which
protects man Is the only one that has
right 10 tax him. Nor will they allow any
bond, 10 be taxed which were issued under
law providing for their exemption. The
contract would be held TO be invioaDie'
The bonds issued under the McCULL0cH
bin belong TO this last class.
Another inexcusable blupder on the same
subject is made by "one OF the most learn
ed lawyers and profound iurisIs In The
State" as described by the VoHey F"-
qinion. That learned gentleman begins
private letter &c the editor Of that journal
a follows:
$50 far as the cOnsol debt Of twenty
three millions is concerned. you truly cha.
racterize it in your letter to me as a c'oSed
ISSUE"
Considering that there never were more
than twenty millions OF consols. and that
now there are less than fourteen millions
ana a half, Instead Of twenty-three millions
the above is good joke on tht "le earned
lawyer and profound iurist."
But the same learned gentleman quotes
from the case OF Murray Us. The city Of
Charleston to provo that under the decision
Of the supreme Court OF the United States
in the case of Hartman Us. 'Greeatoo the
consol bonds Of Virginia cannot be taxed. .
We need only quote as to this point the
words of that tribunal itself in the case Of
Hartman rs. GreenhOu. 1t SAID:
"Tbe p0wcr.of the State TO impose tax
upoD her own obligations Is subject upon
which there has been a difference OF opin-
ION among jurist. and statesmen. ON the
one band IL has been conteDded that sucb
a tax 4. in conflict with and contrary TO The
obligation assumed: that the obligation 10
nav certain sum il Inconsistent win a
Iicht. at the same time. TO retain portion
OF it in the shape of a tax, and that to lm-
nose such tax is, therefore, TO violate the
promise Of the GOvernment.-tSee Hamll,
ton on the Public Credit, in his works, 30
VOL. PIP. jl4 TO 51s)
"On the other hand. II is urged that The
bonds Of every State are property III Inc
hands OF It's creditors, and, az such. that they
should bear a due prOpoi ton OF the pubic
burdens. In the case OF Murray Us. ChdrfeS'
ton (9G L. $, 44j) there are many pertinent
and lust observations oil this subject whica
1t is not material to repeat, for the question
is not necessarly involved in the disposition
OF the case before US. Whatever may be the
wi.e rnle-lookipg al the necessity in COM
morcial country for It's prosperity that its
public credit should never be impaired-as
TO the taXabiity OF the public securities,
il is settled that any tax levied upon
them cannot be withheld from the ill.,
teTest payable thereon. Such was the de-
cision Of this court IN Murray rs. Charles
ton. There the city had issued certificates
of stock, whereby it promised 10 pay to the
owners thereof certain sums OF money, win
O per cent. interest, payable quarterly. sub
sequently II imposed Il tax Of = per cent. on
The value of all property within It's limits
for the purpose Of meeting the expenses OF
its government; and, treating its stock as
part OF such property, directed that the tax
assessed upon 1t should be retained ny the
treasurer Of the city from the interest due
thereon. To recover the amount thus re-
tanned, which was enc third OF the interest
stipulated. suit was brought. The city de-
Tended its action on the ground that the tax
on the stock was not higher than the tax on
all other property OF its citizens, and That
all property ia the city was subject to TAXA
ton; but the Court answered that by the
legislation OF the city its obligation To It's
creditors was impaired, and, however great
lis power OF taxation, ii must be exercised,
being political agency OF the state, IN SUI
bordinaiiOn TO the inhibition OF the Federal
Constitution against legislation impairlng
the obligation of contracts. Until the ln-
terest was paid no act OF the State or OF lis
political subdivisions, exercising legislative
power by lis authority, could work an eX-
oneration from what was promised to the
creditor"
''Sueh tcaS the decision Of this court IN
Murray rs. Charleston" What! Why
this, that:
whatever may be the wise rule
as 10 the taxabilty Of public securities, 1t is
settled that any tax levied upon th I'm can.
not be withhetd from the interest payable
thereon"
TDat is just what was decided in Hart.
man Us. GreenhOw.
As we have said above and before, we
infer from its language that the Supreme
Court OF the United States would, If the
question were TO come before it, decide that
State cannot tax Its own bonds, or at any
rate those held outside Of the State, but GER
tainly that court has not get rendered any
such decision.
--------------
We haven't time at the present writing TO
Al. =. l.. - Il