The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-06-22

Judge Christian, Of the Hastings Court
delivered the following opinion yesterday
Smith Us. Greenho,r. Treasurer, 6C.-Peti
ton for a Mdndamus.
This Is petition for a writ OF mdnddn'u
to compel the Treasurer OF the city OF Rich
mond to receive past-due coupon for iii
teen dollars cut from bond OF the Com
monweath OF Virginia issued, under th'
act Of March 2S, 1879, entitled I" An act t.
provide plan OF settlement OF the public
debt" I'm payment OF certain taxes alleged
TO be due by petitioner to the Common
wealth amounting to fifteen dollars. Tht
return OF the Treasurer to the rule award
ed says he is "ready to receive said cou
pon in payment OF such taxes as soon as Il
has been legally ascertained to be genuine
and the coupons which by law are actually
receivable for taxes" This
RETURN OF THE OFFICER
is in the form required by section 4 OF The
act approved January II, 1882, entitled
San act to prevent frauds upon the Com
monwealth ana the holders OF her securi
ties in the collection and disbursement OF
the revenue" 1t is demurred to by the
petitioner
First. Because he alleges that although
the bonds issued under the act OF March
2S, 1879 Grom which this coupon was cut)
are referred TO in the preamble to the ac'
Of January IA, 1882. they are nowhere refer
red TO in the enacting clauses OF that act
and that the proceedings contemplated by
that act apply solely TO the coupons cut
from bonds issued under the act OF March
80, 1871, which are alone named in the en-
acting clauses OF said act of January a.
| 1882: and
Secondly, because il said coupons are
contemplated in the proceedings prescribed
by said aforementioned act, it impairs the
obligation Of the contract made by the
State with the coupon-holdcr, and for that
and other reasons, the said act OF January
IA. 1882, is void.
In the view that have taken Of this case
it is unnecessary for me to determine whe.
ther or not these coupons are embraced in
the
REMARKABLE PROCEEDINGS
contemplated by the act Of January A.
1882. The bonds issued under the act oi
March 2S, 1879, are certainly referred to
60 nOmine only in the preamble to the act
of January II, 1882, and that preamble
so ambiguously worded as to make il i'm.
possible to determine from itS phrdseOlogg
whether the Legislature intended to pro.
tect the rights Of the holders OF spurious
or genuine bonds. Indeed both classes are
referred 10 in the same terms in the latter
part Of that preamble.
Admitting, then, that the coupons cut
from bonds issued under the act Of March
2S, 1879, are embraced in the proceedings
contemplated by the act OF January IL,
1882, does that act impair the obligation OF
the contract made by the State with the
holder Of such couponsi If it does, then
said act is void.
THIS Is NOT THE QUESTION
presented to the Court OF Appeals at IT,
last term by Mr.. Royal in AntOni rs.
GreenhO,r, in which the mdnddmuS was re.
fused by an equally divided court. II il
was, | would us | did after the decision
by the divided court in Hartman Us.
Greenholc, enter the same judgment which
was entered by the divided court on the
same question. This is the extent to which
a Judgment by divided appellate court has
ever been held as binding on the lower
courts in Virginia. (See 9Th Call, 10;
Leigh, 32l: Gilmer, 10 N, and III:
Rand, 1880; 2 Rand, III; Rand,
3S9-i09) The coupon in Mr.. Royals case
was cut from bond issued under the act Of
March 80, 1871, which bonds are specifically
referred to in the first, second, and third
sections Of the act now under considera.
ton: and two OF the judges of the Court
of Appeals were not clearly of opinion
that the remedies given in those Sec
tions for making these contracts OF
the State available, were not as ef-
fectual as those which existed at
the time of the contract, and which entered
into and formed part OF that contract. 1t
is conceded by the attorney for the Com
monwealth that the bond from which the
coupon i'm this case was cut is not embraced
in said sections 1, 2, and 3 OF the act as just
referred to, and so the question now pre-
sented is
FOR TIE FIRST TINE
to be decided in Virginia, so far as | know,
and must be guided by the law as l un-
derstand it, to be settled by the Supreme
Court OF the United States and other courts
in similar cases.
BY section 10 OF Article Of the Federal,
and section il Of Article 3 OF the State
Constitution, the State is forbidden to pass
any law "impairing the obligation OF con-
tracts" The coupon in this case is alleged
to have been cut from bond Of the State
issued under authority of an act Of the
General Assembly approved March 2S,
1879, and says on its face that it is "re-
ceiyable for all taxes, debts, dues, and de-
mands due the State" That these words,
and those used in the bond, constitute a
contract between the holder Of these coupons
and the State that they shall be received for
taxes will hardly be questioned in Virginia
by lawyers since the decisions OF our own
Supreme Court in AntOni Us. Wright, %
Graft, Clarke Us. Tyler, 80 Graft, and the
decision Of the Supreme Court OF the
United States in Hartman Us. GreenhO,c,
II Otto, 672. 1t is true that the coupons
In those cases were cut from bonds issued
under the
ACT OF MARCH, 80, 1871,
and recited Oh their face that they were
receivable for all taxes, debts, and de-
mands due the State"; but the principles
which controlled those decisions apply a
multo fOrtiori to the coupon in this case,
which not only contains all the words Of
those then under consideration, but the
additional word "dues"; and, as was
said in Clarke Us. Tyler supra, "dues
and demands" are the most comprehensive
words that our language affords to impart
obligations. Besides, these bonds were
issued in the light Of those decisions from
our Supreme Court, and under an act
passed after what was deemed by ma
jority OF the Legislature which passed it
a compromise had been effected between
the State and the representatives OF the
holders OF many Of her obligations, in
which liberal concessions were made by
the latter.
Is the obligation Of this contract i'm
paired by the act Of January IA, 1892
AS before stated, 1t Is admitted by the rep