Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-10-10
SUPREME COURT CASES.
JUILLARD'S LEGAL TENDER
CASE AGAIN POSTPONED.

The Chances of its Ever Being Argued
Very Vague-Another Batch OF Vir-
ginia Coupon Cases by the Apparently
Intolerable Unfairness of the Last
Decision.
WASHINGTON, d. c., Oct. 9.-In the
Supreme Court of the United States to-
day the legal tender case of Juillard vs..
Greeman, was, on motion of William
Allen Butler, of New York, set for hear
ing on the first day that the court shall be
III session after the Christmas holiday re-
cess. There is, however. little more
probability that the case Will be argued
then than there was that it would be ar
gued to-day. 1t was originally d0cketed
in 1879, and since that time has twice
come up Tor argument in regular call.
On both occasions ii was
passed because the counsel
were not ready to argue 1t.
On the 4th of January, 1888, motion to
nN DAY Tor argument was made bV
senator Edmunds, and was denied by the
court. On the ID of February another
similar motion was made by the counsel
on the same side, and was again denied.
the court explaining that il was willing
10 hear the case at any time. but the
cOunSeI must agree upon some day, and
not ask the court TO arbitrarily fix on
one at that time. 1t was supposed that il
was Governor Butler who was not ready,
and that Senator Edmunds was anxious
Tor an immediate hearing. To-day, when
the case was reached for the second timeIn
regular order, 1t was again postponed on
motion of the same counsel who, in JAN
uary and February last, made repeated
attempts to bring it to adjudication and
manifested an eager desire to argue il at
NJ bAN atax Tone L..
ing then, and are apparently Indifferent
whether they get hearing or not now, is
question: to which no answer is at pres
ent obtained.
William Allen Butler, of New York. the
leading counsel in the opposition 70 the
constitutionality of the legal tender act.
upon being asked to-day whether he
thought there was any probability of an
argument OF the case on the day to which,
at his request, it had been assigned, de-
cllned to express an opinion.
The court at its last term rendered what
was then regarded as a final decision in
the important Virginia bond case of
Antoni VS.. GreenhOw, involving the
question whether the coupons of the State
bonds were legal tender in payment of
State taxes. The opinion of the court.
however, was variOusly understood in
Virginia by the Judges whose decisions ii
was supposed TO control, and as a conse-
quence new legitation arose with regard
to the receivability ofcoupOns for taxes and
new set OF eases has been brought
TO this court upon writs of error from the
United States Circuit Court for the East
ern District of Virginia, and from the
Hastings Court of the City of Richmond.
The suits are all against Samuel G. Green
how, Treasurer of the city just named,
and the plaintiffs in error are Thomas
POindeXter, A. Austin Smith, William l..
White and Samuel Carter. In behalf of
these plaintiffs William l.. Royal, their
counsel, to-day filed motion to advance
all cases for the reason that they are of
great public Importance and "a decision
OF them is necersdry to the peace and
order of society in the State OF Virginia"
Mr. Royal, IN his argument in support
of the motion to advance said "At its
last term the court advanced and decided
the case of AntOni VS.. GreenhOw, because
it considered the case one of such public
Importance that it ought to be decided at
once. Now, every consideration which
could have impelled the court to ad-
vances to decide the Antoni VS.. Greenhow
case, demands that these cases should be
advanced and decided. The decision
which the court made is not understood
in the State. By examining Judge
Bonds opinion the court will see that
he holds that, under the decisions
VI bHIo COul y tOupbHS dIt iegdl
tender for taxes, and that he will
enjoin Collectors from levying after
the tender OF coupons. Under this de-
clslon all persons who owe as much as
5000, and can consequently apply to him
for an injunction, are exempted from the
payment of taxes; but by inspecting
record case No. 800 the court will see
that the State Judges take q different
view of the decision. This court has
made and holds that the taxes must first
be paid in money, and that there must be
"A suit by the taxpayer to recover his
money back, as the State law requires.
Thus, all persons who pay less than $500
of taxes are compelled to pay their taxes
in money, whist those who owe $500
pay no tax at all. This is an intolerable
state of affairs, and something must be
done to change it or great disorder will
ensue. The defendant in error cOncurs
with the plaintiffs in asking that these
cases be advanced, land his request should
carry great weight with it. He repre-
sents to the court that he cannot know
his rights and duties as collector of the
States taxes until it decides the ques-
tiOns involved. On one side the statute
of the State forbids him to receive the cOu-
pons and commands him to levy on the
taxpayers property, and, on the
other, the United States Circuit
Court informs him that the coupons
are legal tender, and the Taxpayers
threaten that they will sue him for tres
pass if he levies on their property. This
condition of things exists in the county
and in the State" The court took the mo-
tiOn to advance under advisement.