The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1883-01-11
The Virginia Debt.

crossed, ana decision Is looked Tor to-day.
The Virginia Debt.
The Virginia Tax case, was argued in thu
Supreme Court of Appeals of the United
States at Washington, on Monday last. The
National Republican Of the Sth presents the
following synopsis of the points in the case:
Attorney General Blair, of Virginia, will
to-day argue before the supreme court the
case of Antoni VS.. Greenhow, involving the
constitutionality of recent legislation by the
general assembly of Virginia. As opposing
counsel will be present, the court and the
country will be informed as to question
much misunderstood.
The issue involved in the pending case is
the power of state legislature to control
remedies in civil causes. From preamble to
conclusion there is nothing in the act to be
adiudcated affecting either directly or re-
motley the state debt of Virginia, or the bind
ing obligation of the state from any standpoint
of calculation. Ingeniously contrived and ex-
ecuted forgeries of the genuine bonds of Vir-
GINA have flooded the markets of the country.
The financial officers of the state have found
it difficult and laborious to discriminate be-
tween the genuine and the spurious bonds.
Last winter the two auditors and the treas.
urer OF the state reported to the legislature
that frequently counterfeit coupons were pre-
scented tor payment, and in other instances
coupons already paid were presented. Ex-
animation revealed the alarming fact that in
some cases payments had been made of the
same coupons twice and even three times.
A committee, consisting of legislators of both
political parties, made report in accordance
with these facts, and thereupon ensued the
of hn MOI hxa c1hi Of in
vestlgation by the supreme court. By it the
holder of coupons proven to be genuine can
utilize them in payment of all dues to the
state. The preamble of the bill recites the
facts justifying the act necessary to protect,
not the state alone from forged and fictitious
bonds and coupons, but the owners of bona
fide securities of the state.
1t is noteworthy that the act of the Vir-
ginia legislature is almost literal copy of
the Tennessee act adjudicated by the supreme
court of the United States in the case of Ten
nessee VS.. Sneed 10Th Otto, Goth U. S. reports)
the difference being that Tennessee by bank
notes OF the Bank of Tennessee pledged her
faith that they should be tax receivable, while
as to Virginia it is claimed that the coupons
pledged her faith. Having affirmed the validity
of the act of Tennessee, the supreme court
of the United States twice reatfirmed, in cases
from Alabama and Mississippi, the doctrine
laid down in the act of Tennessee and the
decision thereupon.
Misrepresentation as to the bearing of the
pending case upon the general subject of the
state debt of Virginia arises from confounding
it with subsequent legislation not yet adjudi-
Gated by the state courts. The pending act
has been approved by the supreme court of ap-
peals of Virginia, hostile politically to the
dominant party.
The correspondent of the Baltimore San OF
the 9th gives the following account of the
proceedings of Monday:
The Virginia tax case was called in the
United States Supreme Court at half-past
three this afternoon. On opening the case
for the bondhoiders Mr.. Royal requested
that his time be extended one hour, in conse-
quence of the Importance of the subject in
volved Chief Justice Waite allowed him an
additional half hour. Mr.. Royal proceeded
to discuss the question of the debt of Vir-
ginia and the relation thereto of West Vir-
ginia. He next proceeded to give history OF
the origin of the readjuster party in Virginia
and the circumstances attending its obtain
ing control of the State government-neces-
sarily in this line of argument touching upon
politics. Chief Justice Waite interrupted him
by saying that he did not think the court
could consider the case from merely politi-
cal standpoint, and suggested that he cOntine
himself to the law propositions involved. Mr..
Justice Miller remarked that 1t was not GUS
tomary for the Supreme Court to listen to
the complaints of democratic or antidemo-
ocratic parties He said they were there to
consider the law and the facts in the case,
and he did not see what a recital of the
political action of the readjuster party in
Virginia had to do with the case. Mr.. Royal
insisted that the court was bound to take
pOfi of ho rn1ifiool fnalinO fbot icto ~,
Virginia at that time, and that he was follow
ing a precedent laid down in the famous
slaughter house cases. He continued in the
same strain until Mr.. Justice Miller said he
would not sit and listen to that style of argu-
ment, and if the counsel did not confine him
self to the law he would appeal to the court.
Mr.. Royal replied that he felt bound to abide
by the Judgment of the court, but he could
show where the court had assumed juris-
diction over political questions before. By
this time the hour of adjournment had ar
rived and Mr.. Royal suspended his argument
| and will resume tomorrow. Representative
Randolph Tucker, Gov. Holiday and number
of Virginia politicians were present, as were
also number of Baltimore bankers and
brokers and others interested in the case.
Attorney General Blair, in behalf Of the re-
adjuster State government of Virginia, will
| have two hours in which to reply to Mr..
Royal, and the latter will then conclude.
The course of the chief justice and of Asso-
ciate Justice Miller to-day confirms the view
set forth in this correspondence last night,
that the court will confne its consideration
of the case to the strictly technical questions
involved.
On the 9th, the argument in the Virginia tax
case was concluded in the Supreme Court.
Mr. Royal, in resuming, made the re-
mark that the coupon killer No. 1 bill, the
basis of the suit, was trick and a fraud He
was interrupted and informed that the court
could not go into the question of politics or
of ulteriol motives that it was bound to ac-
cept the statements made on the face of the
bill In the further course of his argument
Mr.. Royal endeavored TO controvert some of
the points contained in the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Snead VS.. Ten
nessee, which case he also contends in his
brief is not analogous with the Virginia case
Justice Miller said the decision was unanimous,
and was now the law. Mr.. Royal argued as
to the injustice and nconstitutionality of the
restrictions thrown in the way of the coupon
holder, and the expense imposed upon him in
verifying his coupon. Attorney General Blair,
in opening for the Commonwealth of Vir-
| ginia, said he was glad that the court had rel
egated to the stump and the hustings, where
they properly belonged, the discussion of the
political features attempted to be brought into
the case. This narrowing of the argument
would, he said, enable him to address himself
entirely to the legal and equitable aspects of
the case. He concluded his argument within
a half hour of the time allotted to him, and
Mr.. Royal then made the closing argument.
As on yesterday many Virginians and Balti-
moreans were in attendance The decision of
the court will probably not be rendered for
several weeks.