Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1882-04-28
The ''Coupon-Killer" Case.

suit in the Court of Appeals, which was to
test the constitutionality of the Coupon
killer failed as stated in yesterdays Ga
zettee by divided court Judges Staples
and Burks deciding in favor of the constitu-
tionality oithe act and Judges Christian and
Anderson against. The case will 90 to the
Supreme Court of the United States.
In refusing the motion for writ Of man
damus. Judge Bllrks. says: ''Aftera care.
full examination of the suhiec am not sat
isIicd that the legislative acts questioned III
this proceeding are in conflict with the con-
tract clause OF the constitution. Al least
my conviction Of their invalitlity is not so
clear and strong rs to warrant Judgment to
that effect. feel bound. therefore. not to
solve my doubts against the validity of the
acts. Previous To the act of January II.
1882, the holder Of coupon had his remedy
by mandamus, proceedings on which were
regulated by provisions to be found in the
code Of 1873 chapter 15l. This remedy was
not wholly abolished by the act in question
/ 1t was only modified and The preceding sun
! der the writ somewhat altered. Remedy by
! the writ according TO my construction. is
entirely taken away in eases like the present
ny the subsequent act of April 4, 1852.
Legislation is necessary to enable this court
20 exercise lis original jurisdiction by man
damls under the constitution. The remedy
provided rs Il substitute for the writ is i0nnl
! III sections |, = and 3 or'thc acts Of Jan. II,
! 1882. The question is whether it is an ade-
quatc substitute for the remedy abolished ?
lift Is not, then, according to Il long line OF
decisions Of the Supreme Court Of the Uni
,nl Nt.,th L., L.,
not be sustained. One Of the most obiec-
tionable features Of the act would seem to
be that holder Of coupons is required to
| pay his taxes or other dues in money, or its
equivalent, and to wait the result of his ac-
ton 10 have it refunded to him in case he sue
ceels in his actien: but in case ofthe Tonnes
see W. Sneed. 9G United States 6 Otto, &C. j
upon which the Virginia act was avowedly
| framed the same thing was required by the
Tennessee act and the Supreme Court OF
the United States did not consider that fea-
tre as invalidating the act, although notes
tenderedwere rect ivable thel IS coupons are
here III payment of taxes and other dues 10
the State. 1t would seem that the writ OF
mandamus was not the remedy against the
State OF Tennessee or its officers ut the time
the act was passed that made the notes OF
bills in question receivable by the State
Such was not the case here. With us the
remedy did lie against the officer when the
funding acts of 1871 and 1879 respectively
were passed. But ] understand the SUI
premc Court i'll their opinion TO hold that
even if mundamus had been the remedy. the
action given against the officer would have
been an adequate substitute. + consider
this Il case in which, as Judge Lee said in
| Eyre vs.. Jacob, IA, Graft. 422, to doubt is TO
affirm. | have less hesitation in yielding to
this doubt because the decision of the court
in my opinion, furnishes litigants an oppor-
tunity to speedily test the correctness of the
conclusions here on one side or the other in
The Supreme Court of the United States
| whose decision, what ever ii may be. must
be final and conclusive settlement of Il
much-veXcd question. ] am ofthc opinion
that preremptory mandamuS should be re-
fused
In dissenting from the opinions Of Judges
Staples and Burks Judge Anderson. referring
totheact III controversy said: Whilst lis pro
fcssed object in its title is to prevent frauds
upon the commonwealth and holders of her
securities, it i'll effect destroys or greatly
deprecatcs the value ofthose securities, and
thereby mpairs the obligation of contracts
under the vain prcteNt that il is necessary to
| illllttS.
1t not only destroys or renders almost val
uelcsi coupons, hut also coupon bonds
amounting TO millions OF dollars issued by
the state underauthority ofthe act Of March
80. 1871. whose value depends upon prompt
payment ofinterest, which assurance was
given 10y the State to holders of those bonds
by the stipulation in the contract that coup
ons ut and after maturity should be receiv:,-
PIE Tor all taxes, debts, &c, due the State.
IlllS statue prohibits revenue officers TO re-
cclVe any coupon, though unquestionubly
genuine, when rendered for or in discharge OF
taxes: Nc, due the State, and requires the
bearer OF the coupon so rendered TO pay his
laNes III coin Or other currency, which |
think is plainly reputation or annulment of
the states contract. am OF opinion that
the act provides no remedy for the enforce
lnent OF the contract Of the State to receive
coupons III payment of taxes that il repud-
lates and annul; the same by requiring the
bearer and tenderer Of coupons to rav his
taxes in coin, &C.; that it provides Il very
inadequate remedy for the taxpayer to re-
cover his money back which has been wrong
! fully eXtorted from him. Can such RENE
dy be regarded rs all adequate remedy in
place Of his remedy by mandamus. which
the law guaranteed to him at the time the
contract was made, and which had been
the law OF Virginia from very early period
;lnd which also provided the means where
by the State could test the genuineness
OF the coupon if she denied its genuine
ness through her officer in his re-
turn to the rule? The state might do
that now, and there was no necessity for
such device and contrivance TO DESTROY
the value Of the coupon and depreciatc the
value Of the bonds of the State as would be
eilectIatcd by this act, if it is enforced 10
protect The State against frauds"
THE Wonder Of the Ace"