The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-10-13

UIEbtt3EH o3tt - e''% - a..
be from an able lawyer, once pronlinsh. :"
our politics. We have read u VIII in'ci-
~ n 4 an attempt TO establish the pro-
snsstiou that the Legislature Of Virginia
has Inc mower 20 take away from the SUI
,re,ne Court Of Appeals the right to issue
80 uri, al mandamus, or, which Is the
same thing. has the power to give shat
rnns. jurisdiction TO issue the writ in Ger
tain eases and 10 deny 70 il jurisdiction to
issue that witt in other cases. When we
recsll the fact that the Constitution In ex-
prsss words twice confcrs upon that couft
jurisdiction in eases Of Indnddmas' wcnlay
wei, Dc surprised to find lawyer writing
c:.lm. dispasslonate article, and one eVl-
denly intended 10 be fair, for the purpose
Of establishing the proposition we nave
stated.
IL, az state 30. e. DIS" proposition
IN cher terms. Perhaps he will not re-
eoynize Il when we say that II Is IN sub
stance contention that the jurisdiction OF
the supreme Court Of Appeals in cases OF
moaelamus Is exactly the same as IL would
have been Il there had been no mention Of
the writ In the Constitution. lie contends
that the writ stands upon exactly the same
footing In Virginia az il does In Tennessee,
although in Tennessee the Constitution
does not attempt to confer jurisdiction
upon her highest court in such cases, whilst
In Virginia the Constitution does in clear
language and IN two places IN one and the
same section confer jurisdiction upon
our highest court in such cases.
The Constitutional Convention OF 1850,
which first put the provision in ques-
ton iuto our Constitution,.waso one OF the
ahlcsi bodies OF men that ever assembled IN
Virginia. Why did they thus waste their
timer How was IL that the finest lawyers
IN the Commonwealth had not sense enough
TO know that their well-chosen words were
null and void? The statute-law Of the
state, and the practice OF the courts, and
comnon-law precedents, override the re-
qni.ements Of the Constitution il "Q. +.
Do Is not in error. But he is mistaken
totally mistaken. His argument would be
good but for the Constitution. This spois
II ali.
II follows from what we have said that
the quotation made by go. f. D." from
20 Leigh is not TO the point.
go. T.. D." raises the question whether
constitutional provision can operate pro
prio rigore or not. II certainly can so
operate in all such cases as the one before
us. II the Legislature could render a con-
stitutional provision Of none effect by re-
fuslng to base any law upon ii, then itwere
I'm easy matter 10 undo the UNDERWOOD
Constitution. The Mahoneites need only
repeal The lar i'm regard to the capitation-
tax, and the constitutional prOriSiOn re-
outing its payment as a prerequisite TO
voting will die with 1t. The Constitution
allows appeals to the highest court in the
Sfste in all cases involving the constitution
atty Of law. Can the Legislature, by re-
fusing to base a law upon this provision de-
priye Virginians OF right thus guaranteed
by their constitutional Can court ignore
the Constitution and demand statute? OF
courre not. When the suitor points the
Judge TO the Constitution he points TO law
which cannot be disregarded or over
looked--a law higher than an act OF Assem-
blythe organic law Of the Commonwealth,
II. then, the RIDDLEBERGER bill becomes n
law and the coupon-holders 60 TO the Court
Of Appeals with the plea that that law is
unconstitutional, can that court refuse to
take jurisdiction because an act OF Assembly
denies IL to that tribunal. OF course not,
again. We have, therefore, no flaw to pick
in 90. Il. D.'s" history. We only claim
that all the cases he cites arc of the ques-
ton. They belong TO a different era, or
state Of things, and have no applicability to
the case before us.
We agree that mGEddmuS should not
Issue where "another adequate remedy is
provided by law" But as Mr.. TUCKER
saws, Ii Mr.. RIDDLEBERGER has provided
another adequate remedy for the tax-pay-
ers they viii not need nor ask for the writ
Of rnarda0,aS; but II Mr.. RIDDLEBERGER
has not provided another adequate remedy,
then they will demand the writ and get it.
But the fact Is well known, and is the sub
Itll Oh UOdcilHE Oi thC liaAJ va biiN -AdhOnC-
itee, that no adequate remedy has been pro-
yided in the RIDDLEBEaGER bill. So the
taxpayers would have their mond0mtS.
It IS absurd TO say that any ridiculous pro-
ceeding the Legislature might choose to
call "a remedy" would be an "adequate
remedy
&c. +. D." quotes the following as good
law, and we endorse il as such:
at is competent for the States to change
the form OF the remedy or 10 modify ii
otherwise as they may see cit, provided no
substantial right secured by the contract is
thereby impaired. No attempt has been
made 20 fix definitely the line between al
serations Of the remedy which are to be
dceomed legitimate, and those which under
the form OF modifying the remedy impair
substantial rights. Every case must be
determined on lbs own circumstances"
Every case must be determined on
It's own circumstances" To refuse TO re-
ceivc coupons from a taxpayer is to impair
"a substantial right secured by the con-
tract" The taxpayers have the right to
pay their taxes in coupons. 1t is mere
tri6ing 10 compel them TO pay their taxes
In money, and then compel them to sue at
cost Of more than ten dollars in cases
where less than ten dollars OF taxes are in.
VOWED. Their right to pay in coI-
pons Is not simply " impaired" but /. alb.
soluiely taken away by the RIDDLEBERGEr
bin.
20. =. Do says;
"And In Tennessee as. snecd. ne N t,x.
receivable bank bills n a. irrovoeahl,, a.