The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-04-28

Iia doubtful case the Court should give :,
fhe Jegislature that enacted the law th,
benefit Of ifs douhts. hold that where III,
law is a pIain violation OF the Constitution
there rests upon the Court the highest oh.
LEGATION 30 To declare.
n Is not INV purpose TO argue the ques-
tions involved In this case, but merely "a
express my opinion. 4 am OF opinion that
there IL an important distinction between
this ease and the case OF Tennessee rs.
Tsneed, 30 much relied on by the Attorney
General. And I refer 70 the more recent
decisions OF Hartman as. Greenhow, and
State of Louisiana Us. Pilsbury, mayor
the latter decided few DAYS ago--as deci-
siye OF this ease. Indeed, i might refer TO
the unbroken current OF decisions OF that
/ Court prior TO the cases allnded 10.
In all controversies which have been
before this Court touching the. indebted
ness Of the State It has been my endeavOr
| TO maintain faithfully the obligation Of con-
/ tract, and the supremacy OF the Constitu-
/ ton. both State and Federal, upon which
I foundations society rests. and which are
essential to the existence Of Government,
State and Federal, and 10 the welfare and
prosperity OF the citiz~n.
In the ease before Iis 4 have been unable
conscientiously to come 10 any other con-
illusions than those / have expressed. IL
NAV prove. however. 10 be fortunate dis
position OF this case by a divided court,
because two OF my brethren have not been
able TO reach the same conclusions with
that freedom from doubt which would
warrant them In declaring the law TO be
unconstitutional so that the whole subject
may be transferred from this court to the
Supreme Court OF the United States, whose
province II is 10 enforce the obligations OF
contract and maintain the supremacy OF the
Constitution. and whose decision is final.
For this result 10 the ease here / have no
regret, but am rather gratiled, as 1t is Of
the last importance TO the State that these
questiOns should be speedily and finally
settled, and al all will bow 10 the decision
Of that high tribunal Of last resort; and il
an in error shall be glad TO be corrected.
Judge stapIcs's Opinion.
The views which | entertain with respect
TO the coupon features of the funding bill
are known to all those who have paid any
attention to the decisions Of this court on
that subject. They are fully set forth in
AntOni rs. Wright, - Grattan, $50, and
Clarke rs. Tyler, Sergeant, 30 Grattan, li5.
My opinion, as expressed in these eases,
is that the Legislature have the power to
repeal the law declaring that coupons shall
be received in payment OF taxes and other
public dues, and that such repeal did not
impair the obligation Of any contract with
in the true intent and meaning of the Con-
stitution Of the United States.
Entertaining this opinion, ! must OF
course hold that il Is competent for the Le-
gislature TO prescribe terms and conditions
with which the holder Of the coupon must
comply in order to use IL IN discharge Of his
dues TO the State. Fer il the Legislature
may declare that the coupon shall not be re-
ceived at all in payment of taxes, il may
declare it shall not be received until it is
proved 10 be genuine by some proper pro-
ceeding before the courts. These views
necessarily lead me 10 The conclusion that
the act now under consideration is valid
and constitutional.
II. however. the question is 10 be re-
garded rs settled otherwise by the deci-
sions of this court and the Supreme Court
Of the United States. am still Of opinion
that this court ought TO sustain the act in
question for the reasons set forth in the
opinion Of Judge Burks. Others might
perhaps be given in addition TO those sug-
gested by him, but il is not necessary or pro-
per 10 enter into their consideration here.
This court being equally divided, it has
been agreed, in conformity with our uni
form practice and course Of proceeding,
that the result should be announced with
out any detailed or protracted discussion
OF the points involved in this important
controversy.
The case can now 20 10 the Supreme
Court Il the United states il -the parties
interested are inclined TO take il there.
For one. rejoice that it is so, and that at
last we have a well-grounded hope that this
most perpleXing and embarrassing que,-
tion will no longer be a cause OF strife and
contention among the people Of Virginia.
Judge Christians Views.
After the foregoing opinions were read,
Judge Christian, the acting president Of
the court. made, in substance (orally), the
following statement Of his views:
When the Court Is equally divided in
opinion ,as in this easel it would be- an Iln-
necessary and useless task 10 enter into any
elaborate discussion OF the important ques-
tions involved in the ease before us or TO
state at length the reasons and the authOri-
ties which govern each Judge in the con-
illusions at which he las arrived. such
discussion would be useless, because It
would not change or affect the decision of
the ease. | am content, therefore, TO say
for myself and this is sufficient Tor me TO
saw that after a most careful consideration
OF all the questions so elabOratey argued
at the bar am Of opinion that the acts OF
the General Assembly in question are
plainly unconstitutional, and that they are
manifestly in violation OF that provision OF
the Federal Constitution Interpreted by
one unbroken current OF decisions OF the
Supreme Court OF the United States which
declares that no state shall pass any % law
impairing the obligation Of contracts"
Now. while | admit it is the duty OF the
judicial department OF the Government,
generally. 10 give eject TO the acts Of its CO.
equal and coordinate department, the Le-
gislaturc, and always in doubtful case to
solve the doubt in favor OF the validity Of
the law, on the other hand il is one OF its
highest duties and most solemn preroga-
tiycs 10 declare rhdt the lac Is, and where
the legislative viii Is in contrayention Of
the supreme idio Of the land the judicial
DEPARTMENT must uphold that TAR aud un-
flinchingly guard IL rs INyIOLABLE.
For myself / must say | have no doubt
that the acts Of the General Assembly in
question are plainly unconstitutional.
am for declaring them null and void. and
for directing the issuance OF geremptory
nondan,us compelling the Treasurer Of the
city Of Richmond 10 receive the coupons
rendered 10y the petitioner
have nothing more to say, except that
! entirely concur in what has already been
so well and aptly said by my brother An
derson.
The result OF a divided court Is that The
petition for writ OF mdRdomus " denied.
s--.l..tt.. -, "a, ,,.ffb my hrnthrpt i'm the