The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-03-10
The Common Case.

Inc coupon Ease.
We print this morning the full opinion
of the Supreme Court Of the United states
IN the case OF Antoni Us. Greenho,c. We
pub,ish with Il letters from General GEORGE
J. HuNpLEy and WILLIAM L. royal,
ESQ. giving their opinions as TO the effect
of Il. II there are two sides TO the ques-
ton II Is our duty TO make this fact known.
But VIC must say that our opinion CO.
incides with that Of General IlUNDLEY, that
Virginia coupons are now not very yalua-
BILE. We have read the opinion OF Tue
court, and weighed its words carefully;
and though we concedc that II is not Just
what we had been led by the Washington
papers to believe II TO be, yet il affords inc
bondholders little reason for hoping that
they will ever again realize much from
their coupons.
Mr.. ROYAL TtalicizeS some words taken
from The opinion Of the Chicf Justice.
There are good many such phrases III The
opinion, and some OF tkcm stronger than
tloSe quoted by Mr.. ROYAL. We own
Nat it Is not easy TO reconcile them with
the burden Of the opinion. In fact, Chief
Justice WAITE appears to have been stHk-
ing out in The dark TO have rendered n
decision which he did not like himself;
and TO be limiting that "there is future"
We have never before read one OF his opin-
ions which was not clear. The paragraph
near the end beginning with the WORDS
ain conclusions" reads a. il il were nm
invitation 10 the bondholders to try IL
again.
All. however. we can make of the opln-
ion we can state i'm few words. II means
that the state is bound to receive her cot-
mons for taxes; and that the supreme
Court will so decide as it decided in the
case Of Hqrfmaa rs. GrCenhOlC. 1t means
that that high tribunal will not allow any
Virginia law TO stand which forbids her
officers TO receive them for taxes. But II
also means that the State had perfect
lirht to pass the coupon-killing Dill, ana
that She is under no obligation TO receive
for taxes any coupons which have not been
proved in court of justice to be genuine.
II says the coupOn-holder whose coupons
are refused has San adequate and cBicd-
cious remedy" lin law suit 1t says MS
10 changing the form Of the remedy at
law. that "tbc Legislature IS primarily the
j,,9qe" rs TO whether the new remedy i'm
pairs any right secured by the contract or
not. IL finds in the United States Statutes
nj Large a law akin TO the coupon-kllling
act of Virginia.
Mr.. royal thinks that all the coupon
holder has to do is TO tender his coupons.
But the law says that ii rendered, they
must be received and identified but while
they are undergoing Identification the
State must have your money; and this !
very thing the Supreme Court says Is no |
more than the United States Government |
does. so We understand the opinion TO de-
clare. The State doesn't refuse the cou- |
pom and lie ont Of her revenue. She
receives the coupon and takes the money !
also. The duty Of her officers is to the |
State, says the Supreme Court in Louisi-
ana ease. And so Of course in Virginia.
Blt what can NUltl-J ustltt w Alib hhN"'i
by the following
a. ANY act OF the State which forbid> the |
receipt OF these coupons for taxes is yio- |
lation Of the contract, and void rs against |
coupon-holders."
Or by saying that he won't decide
" neither the treasurer can distrain for taxes
after genuine coupons are rendered.
He means, in his own words, that the
question before the court was not as 10 the !
right of the coupon-holder to have bis cou-
pons received, but as to the remedy he has |
when denied. Ii the court decides the |
remedy to be good, what are the coupons
worth? Well, the Court decided that very
thiug-that the remedy is a good one, and
the Legislature had The right TO provide
lust that sort OF remedy. "A remedy"
saws the Court, ",chich is ample for the
enforcement Of the payment Of the money IS
ample for an the purposes Of the contrdct.'
surely language could not be stronger.
Again we say it is a remarkable opinion.