The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-01-25
TaX.RECEIyABLE COUPONS
OF Virginia Declared Not 10 be sub
jecf 10 Taxation by the state.
IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE SUPREME CoUET
OF The UNITED STATES YEsTERDAY-THE
HARTMAN. GREENHOW CASE.

WASHINGTON, January "a The United
States Supreme Court to-day rendered de-
cision in the case Of Hartman Us. Gieen-
how. Treasurer Of the city OF Richmond.
In a lorg and carefulIy-wrilien opinion
Justice Field, reviewing the history OF the
debt Of Virginia. and the legislation OF the
safe with reference thereto. expresses the
opinion OF th, court in substance as iol'
lows.
The power Of the State to impose tax
upoa her own obligations - 4 subject upon
which there has been difference OF opinion
among iurisfs aud statesmen; but whatever
NAV be The NiSe,t rule as to The taxa
biitv OF public securities, it IS settled
thai any tax leyiad upon them cannot ee
withheld from the interest PAYABLE thereon.
This was the judgment in tue case OF Mur'
raw rs. Charleston (9G L. s., 40, where
the Court held that by the legislation OF the
clty lis obligation TO its creditors was I'M
paired, and however great the power OF tax
alton, il must be exercised, being political
agency OF The State, IN subOrdinail0n 10 the
Inhibition OF The Federal Constitution
against legislation impairiug the obligation
OF a contract. This decision would be de-
cisiye in the present case; but the present
case is still stronger for the creditors.
The funding act made the bonds is
sued under II payable TO order or
bearer, and made the coupons payable to
bearer. The bonds and coupons, therefore,
were so far distinct and independent con-
tracts that they could be separated from
each other and transferred TO different
hands. This court has repeatedly held that
such coupons have all the essential attri-
butes Of CONNER cial paper; that they are
separate claims against the State, and may
be used to support separate ana indepen-
dent actions. The coupons held by Hart,
man, the petitioner, were distrinct con-
tracts, imposing their own separate obliga.
tons upon the state. Hartman was not
the owner Of the bonds TO which
they had been originally attached. In
his hands they were as free and discharged
from alb liabilities on these bonds as though
they had never been connected with them,
and argument l. hardly necessary to prove
that an act which requires the holder OF one
contract to pay taxes levied upon another
contract held by a stranger cannot be sus-
tanned. Such an act is not Legitimate eX-
ercise OF the taxing p0wev II undertakes
10 impose upon one burdens which should
fall, il at all, upon another. The funding
act stimulates that the coupons should he
receivable for all taxes and dues to the
STATE for their full amount, and upon
this pledge the holders OF the bonds
OF the State surrendered them and took
new bonds for two thirds OF their
amount. The act OF 1876 declares that the
coupons snail not be thus received for taxes
for their full amount, but only for such
norton as may remain after the tax su6se.
ouently levied upon the bonds TO which
they were originally attached Is deducted.
II this act does not impair the contract
with the bOndholder who was authorized
to transfer 10 others the coupons, with the
quantity OF rccevabilty for taxes annexed,
II Is difficult to see in what way 1t would
be impaired, even though the tax on the
bonds should equal the whole face OF the
coupons. II, against the express terms OF
its contract, the State can take portion
of the interest in the shape OF tax on
the bond, it may IL lis pleasure tax the
whole. To this court it IS clear, therefore,
that the act OF the Legislature OF the State
Of Virginia OF 1876, requiring the tax on
her bonds issued under the funding act OF
March 80 1871, TO be deducted from the
coupons originally attached 10 them when
rendered in payment OF taxes or other
dues to the State, il, In the face of
the previous contract win sucn oOndhoiu'
ers contained in the funding acr, law
the obligation OF contract, and
that it Is therefore void. IL follows that the
petitioner was entitled 10 his mGndGmuS to
compel the treasurer of the city OF Rich
mond 10 receive the coupons rendered TO
him In payment OF taxes for their full
amount. The judgment Of the Supreme
Court OF Appeals Of Virginia denying the
writ IS therefore reversed and the cause re-
manded for further proceedings in accord
anee with this opinion.
Justice Miller expressed his dissent from
The opinion OF the Court, and gave as his rea-
sons-dr,t, that the legislature OF State
has authority TO bargain away the States
rights OF taxation: and, second, that In Is
suing the bonds and coupons which are the
subj CT Of this controversy tue Legislature
Of Virginia, neither IN terms or by any just
inference, made any contract that the bonds
and coupons should not be subject to the
same taxes as other property raxed by the