Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1884-10-10

and encourage all taxpayers IN
Virginia to avail themselves of this
advantage, the Council Of Foreign
Bondholders say in their circular,
now before us:
so far as the costs of litigation
are concerned, the undersigned
will furnish each taxpayer with an
attorney without charging him
cent. Mr.. William L. Royal, alto
rney for the undersigned, is inst
ructed to and will represent each
taxpayer in every suit he desires
to bring, without charge to the tax
payers. A letter addressed to him
at Richmond will receive imme-
diate attention
1t seems to us that in this pro-
position the Council and their agent
are made liable to prosecution for
a grave misdemeanor, and Gas we
have done before) we call the
attention of the State authorities
to the offence with is perpetrated
or proposed by this wholesale sys-
tenn of barratry.
But. however that may be, the
circular, no matter how much its
false statements may seem to be
supported by certain remarkable
decisions rendered in the inferior
Federal and State courts, is utterly
misleading, as will plainly appear
whenever the States cause is fully
and fairly set forth in the Supreme
Federal Court. That court, not
only in the case of Antoni VS.. Green
how, but in various other cases,
has recongnized adequate, if not
plenary and exclusive powers in
the State to deal with all the
subjects entering into this question;
and with special reference to the
the very point urged in this circu-
lar of the Foreign BondhOlders,
the court at Washington held that
not only could the State refuse to
receive the coupons until proved
to be genuine, but that meanwhile
the State had a right to demand
the payment of taxes in lawful
money as a condition precendent to
the process whereby alone (as the
court heidi the coupon could be
verified as valid and any legdt ten
der be established. In effect and
in obvious in tent, the court held
that there was no legal tender OF
the coupons which was not accom-
panied by the payment in money
and the surrender of the coupons
which was not accompanied by the
paymentin money and the surrender
of the coupons themselves also.
Not only did the court hold and
decide this, but 1t argued it as
reasonable and necessary that the
State sh hould have this power ovel
its revenues, and illustrated the
matter by citing the recognized
legal course pursued by the Federal
Government in similar cases.
Under the sO-called cOupon-killers
and the decision of the Fedora
Court in AntOni VS.. Greenhow, a
tar. payer (as such) can nerer get
any legal standing IN any court
either to establish a tender or the
validity of his coupons so rendered,
ualeSS he fMHy complies ,cih the
terms imposed, including the pay
ment of money! and if on failure oI
the taxpayers to comply with the
terms, the collector levy, there is
no recourse against the collector
because the taxpayer has failed
to make the legal tender directed
by the statute and ratified by th'
court, and because he has declined
to pursue the only course provl
ded by the statute to verify has
coupons as tax-receiyable.
We say that the above is the
plain meaning, intent and force o
the decision Of the court in Anton
VS.. GreenhOw, unless that higI
tribunal was triflng with very
| grave subjeC and stopped to puerll
quibbling and unworthy evasion
which We do not believe for on
moment. 1t is true, nevertheless
that some inferior courts have
strangely assumed that the SUI
rene Court did not mean what
said, and they rendered judment
which temporarily nullify the sev(
reignty of the State and the SUI
remacy of the Federal Judiciary a
Washington; but therr can be L
reasonable doubt that there al
ways and means to get the whol
matter before the supreme trl0un
and hare IL readjasted GndH
With full court sitting in Anto
VS.. Greenhow, fhere was only OF
Justice who (giving a dissentlr
opinion) at all inclined to the view
now urged in this circular of Il
British brokers (for that is VIII
they are, no matter under VIII
false pretences and aliases thu
may parade themsolves) al
several of the Justices, while co
u curing in the decision of Il
i court sustaining the readjustiI
blsislation, went so far as to pr
ite