Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1883-03-09

The Supreme Court of the United States
has rendered decisions in the Louislana
bondholders' case, and in the case involv-
ing the vHlidity of the Riddlsberger .cou-
pom killer" bill in Virginia, which adds
two new links to the chain Of decisions Of
that tribunal which recognize the auton-
o ny of the States and their exclusive right
to regulate their own internal affairs. The
Louisiana bondholders held certain bonds
ofthat State, for the redemption of which
special sinking fund tax was formerly
prescribed by law, and was in existence at
the time the bonds of the compliments
were purchased. A subsequen. constitu-
tion of the State, however, dispensed with
the sinking fund tax, and annulied the
law regulating the same. The case came
up on a mandamus Fued out against the
financial officers of the State. command
ing them to continue to levy and collect
the tax and apply it to the payment OF
the principal and interest Of the bonds
1t is well established principle Of Fed
eral jurisprudence that no State has au-
thority to pass any law invalidating, or
inpairing the obligation of an existing,
contract; but the Court holds that, tho
this special redemption tax was in exist
ence at the time the bonds were purchas-
ed, and may have been an essential induce
ment to their negotiation, yet there was
no contract on the part of the State to con-
tinue to levy such tax and apply it to
that purpose. This is about the extent
of the decision.
In the Virginia case, however, the SOW
ereignty of the State Legislature seems to
be more clearly recognized. In that State
certain coupon bonds were formerly issu-
ed and negotiated with contract on their
face to receive the coupons in payment OF
taxes. When subsequently the repudia-
ton spirit begun to prevail the "readjus-
ter" legislature passed bill refusing to
receive these coupons in payment of taxes.
The law was adjudged invalid by the
Court of Appeals of Virginia, an the grouud
that it impaired The obligation OF an ex :
listing contract, in violation of the FEEDER
al constitution. At the last session of the
Malone Legislature, bill was introdu ced
by Riddleberger, now U. 8. Senator,w ich
sought to accomplish the same purpose by
indirection. 1t recited in its preamble
that many of these coupons were counter
feits, and required that none of them
should be received in payment of taxes
until their gsnuineRess had been estab-
lished by judicial decision. The appel
lants commended that the fact of the exist
ence OF spurious coupons, recited in the
preamble of the bill, was not true, and
that the expense necessary to procure q
judicial recognition of the genuineness OF
small coupons would practically preclude
their owners from deriving any benefit
from them and that this was an impair
ment of the obligation of the contract on
the face of the bonds. The Supreme
Court held that it had no right to INQUIRE
into the facts recited in the preamble, and
that the State OF Virginia had an unques-
tionable right to adopt such measures a.
it thought proper for the ascertainment Of
the genuineness of claims brought against
her. The validity of the law was sus-
tanned.