The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-04-28
Judge Buriss's opinion.
Anfoni rs. Greenhou, 7redSurer.

When the validity OF a statute is judi
cially drawn in question as being repug-
nant TO the Constitution, State or Federal,
il is the rule OF all the courts, and has been
from the foundation Of the Government,
never TO declare the act void unless its nul-
hiv and inyahdity are placed, in their
Judgment, beyond reasonable doubt. \
reasonable doubt must be solved in favor
Of the legislative action and the act bo sus-
on Constitutional Limi-
tations, and cases cited, 1S2, side p.)
The opposition between the Con-
sttution and the law must sbe
such that the judge feels a clear and
stronc conviction OF their incompatible
itx. ."-Chiei-Justice Marshall in Fletcher
as. Peck, 6 Crouch, 81.
This Court has often laid down the same
rule. It is not necessary 10 cite MI the
cases. Reference 10 a few will suffice.
"The question whether law is IN ac-
cordance with the Constitution SAYS Judge
Brookc) is at all times a very delicate and
important question. III should not
be in a doubtful case that the acis Of that
body dhe legislature should be decided
bv the courts TO be unconstitutional. -
sharp as. Robertson, Grattan, jlS-642.
In the homestead cases, % Grattan, 2G6-
80, Judge Christian, in whose opinion the
other Judges cOncurred, while stating 10 TO
be Zone OF the highest duties and most
solemn obligations (of the Court 10 declare
what the law is" said at the same time that
"it l. the duty OF the judicial department
generally to give effect TO the acts OF its CO.
eulaland coordinate department. the Legis-
lature. and always in a doubtful case to
solve the doubt in favor OF the validity OF
the law"
Speaking for the Court in Commonwealth
rs Moore & Goods0ns. % Giattan, 0jl,
g53. he reitcrates the rule: eve can de-
clare an act Of the General Assembly void
oolU when such act clearly and plainly yio-
latcs the Constitution, and in such manner
as to leave no doubt or hesitation in ou1
minds"
After a careful examination OF the sub
iect. | am not satisfied that the Legislative
acts questioned in this proceeding are IN
conflict with contract clause Of the Con-
stifuti0n-at least my conviction Of then
inyalidity is not 30 clear and strong as "a
warrant Judgment to that chect, and
feel bound. therefore, not 10 solve my
doubts against the validity OF the acts.
Previous to the act OF January II, 1882
the holder OF a coupon had his remedy by
,nanda7nUs. the proceedings on which
were regulated by the provisions TO bC
found i'm the Code OF 1873, chapter l0l
This remedy was not wholly abolished by
the act in question. It was only modified
and the proceedings under the writ some
what altered. This circumstance, how
ever. is not very material, as the remedy by
the writ, according TO my construction, II
entirely taken away in cases like the pres
cut by the subsequent act of April Z, lSS2
Legislation is necessary 10 enable this cOur
TO exercise It's original jurisdiction by
nndndamus under the Constitutlon.-Bar
nett, ,: Meredith, 10; Grattan, COO; Pag'
Us. Clopton, Judge, 30 Grattan, 4l5-4l1.
The remedy provided as substitute fol
the writ IL found in sections /, 2, and o.
the act of January II, 1882. The question
is whether it is an adequate substitute fol
the remedy abolished. Ii it's not, then
according to long line OF decisions OF th'
| Supreme Court OF the United States. which
need not be cited, it cannot be sustained.
The proceeding by nldnddmus at com
mon law was somewhat anomalous. Th'
return 10 the alternative writ was taken a.
| true. It's statements could not be directi,
controverted in that proceeding. II legal,
sufficient, but not admitted to be true, TN
relator was compelled TO resort to his &C
ton against the respondent rs for falls
return. II he succeeded In the action,
peremptory mdndamus was awarded; 9th
erwise not. The proceeding was 81
changed at an early day by statute (ehapte
I5l OF Code OF 1879 as TO dispens
with the collateral action on the return
| The rclator was allowed 10 traverse Tia
return and an issue was made up and trie'
by q Jury. II found for the reiafor, ia
peremptory writ was awarded. Now,
under that statute the respondent ha
ayerred in his return that the coupon ten
dered was spurious, there would have bee
an issue duly made upon that question an
tried In that proceeding, and the pereml