The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-05-01
The R~ehearing.

We have read the paper-prcpared, we
suprcsc, by WILLIAM NJ. EyARTs, Esq.,
asking the supreme Court Of the United
states to grant a rehearing Of the case Of
dndrsr Antoni us. Samuel q. Greenhow,
&c. It Is signed by WILLIAM NJ. EvARTs,
WILLIAM L. royal, WILLIAM A. MAuRy,
Joux +. DILLON, and WAGER SwAYNE. II
takes its positions with a firm tread. and
speaks as il there were a consciousness OF
SUCCESS behind 1t.
But VIC doubt that there will be a re-
hearing. After all Is said and done, II
mus. be true that the State has q right to
nrotee: her treasury against counterfeit
commons. She must have the right, cxer-
cised by every bank of issue in the world,
OF rejecting forged or counterfeit notes
in her case p but coupons which 1t
Is proposed to use as currency, and which
therefore are for the purposes OF this Illus
trative argument in no way different from
bsnk-notcs.
From the opinion Of the Supreme Court
OF the United States in the case OF dntoni
rs. Greenkow 1t appears that the question
OF diminishing the value of the coupons
was considered. The court said:
al. is no doubt rue tina. the commercial
value OF the coupons has been impaired 10y
the hostile legislation Of the State"
Row, then, the burthen Of the applica-
ton for a new hearing is just what the
court had already considered, and, con-
sidering, had decided to be a wrong with
out a remedy IL wrong it was. Mr.. Justice
MATHEWS did not concur in the opinion OF
the court; but he said in his dissenting
opinion that whilst the State was bound to
receive her coupons for taxes, there was no
way In which she could be compelled
to receive them. We are very much
inclined to believe that a reargu-
ment, IL it were allowed, would result
in nothing more satisfactory TO the
b~ondholdcrs than the judicial declaration
that these bondiiolders were unfortunate
persons who possessed a right which had
no value. In n word, they have the right
to pay their taxes with coupons, but the
arm OF the law cannot be used to convert
that abstract right into a concrete fact.
The court also said in the same case OF
Antoni Us. GTeenho,o:
IAN act OF the State which forbids the
receipt of these coupons for taxes Is a vio-
lation OF the contract, and void rs against
coupon-holders."
This language proves clearly that the
court had considered in connection with
the case all the questions which Mr.. EvAETs
and his associates propose TO press hereafter
upon the attention Of. that tribunal.
This application for a rebearing is evil
dence enough that the courts have charge
Of the whole debt question, and that the
OF Virginia acted wisely in ac-
quiescing in the decision made by the peo-
pie of Virginia in 1879 and again in 1881.
The voters having twice declared their de-
termination not to pay any more OF the debt
than the Readjusters proposed to pay,
there remained nothing to be done but for
the courts to decide whether the legislation
resorted to for the purpose OF CARRYING out
the will OF the people was constitutional or
unconstitutional. This question the court
OF last resort has decided aifirmatiyely.
What possible motive could the Democrats
OF Virginia have for re0pening a question
thus settled 10th by the people and by the