Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1883-01-24
rhs New Issne decision.

Fne new hSSue Decision.
The Bank of Tennessee in ls6
issued notes amounting to near a mil
lion Of dollars, commonly known a
the new issue. The old notes wer,
long since declared by the courts to b,
receivable for taxes, but the new issu,
has been refused and resisted by th,
State. Suits have been pending t,
test the validity Of these notes fol
many years 1t has been the opinion
of uuprejudiced and impartial minds
all the time that the State would
eventually have to take up these
notes. Aud now it seems that there
is final decision in the highest courI
to this effect. A dispatch from Sena
tor Howell + Jackson, who was
formerly counsel in the case, was
received here yesterday, stating that
the decision of the lower courts
has been sustained by the United
States Supreme Court. Lawyers
know what this means TIE new
issue must be received for taxes. The
Nashville American of yesterday thus
states the main facts Of the case and
the effect of the decision:
The telegnphic dispatches yester.
day announced the final decision in
the new issue suit, Keith VS.. Clack
argued a few weeks ago in the Su>
preme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court of Tennessee.
several years ago, in an elaborate
opinion, held that what is known as
the New Issue, or Torbitt issue, of the
Bank Of Tennessee, we're properly
issued by the bank, and that they
were not issued in aid Of the rebel
lion, and therefore the holders of
these notes had the first claim on the
assets of the Bank Of Tennessee
This, it was supposed by some law
yers, did not settle the question that
The State was obliged 70 receive the
notes for taxes.
The case Of Clack vs.. Keith was
brought to test this question, and the
Supreme Court Of Tennessee, without
overruliug the former decision, held
upon technical ground that the State
was not bound to receive them for
taxes. This decision was reviewed 10
1879 by tae Supreme Court of the
United States. and reversed, that
court holding that under the twelfth
section of the bank charter, the State
was bound to receive them in payment
pf taxes unless the notes were issued
in aid Of the rebellion, which question
was not sufficiently raised to bo de
cided, as the case then stood. The
case was accordingly remanded to the
supreme Court Of Tennessee, and BY
this latter court, at Jackson, romanded
to the lower court for the question TO
be first tried by jury. This trial
was had and special erdictrendered
by the jury, which the Supreme Court
reversed. The case was again tried
by a jury and was determined, mainly
on the evidence of Governor Ishsm
G. Harris, the jury deciding that the
notes were properly issued andAot in
aid OF the rebellion This verdict
being satisfactory TO the court trying
the case a Judgment was rendered iu
favor of the note holders, aud from
this an appeal was taken to the Su.
preme Court OF the State, and the
judgment affirmed, and from this de.
cision an appeal was taken to the
Supreme Court off tiie United States
and this is the case decided yesterd ay
that court agreeing with the jury Of
the Supreme Court of Tennessee, that
the notes we're not issued in aid of the
rebellion.
The case, when argued in the Su.
preme Court Of tho United States,
some four weeks ago, was argued on
question Of jurisdiction, but it was
afterwards agreed that the Court
should take the whole case and decide
it upon its merits,
The Federal question in the case
arose under the Fourteenth Amend
ment. Under that all obligations of
every kind issued in aid of the re
bel!ion are void. But now, under
both the Supreme Court Of the United
States and the Supreme Court of Ten
nessee, it is held that the notes were
not issued in aid OF the rebellion, and
that the State must take them for
taxes.
- -