Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1884-05-21
The Virginia Coupons.
Mr.. ROYALS VIEWS OF THE RE-
SUITS OF JUDGE HUGHEs's DECI-
SION,

Mr.. William l.. Royal, counsel for
many foreign holders of Virginia bonds,
writes as follows 10 the Richmond
state regarding q late decision of Judge
Hughes 10 a license tax case:
''The principal proposition In Judge
Hughes's decision lie this That a cili.
zen OF Virginia may bring any suit at
law or in equity in the Circuit Court oil
the United States against the State Of
Virginia that he could bring against
another citizen. il constitutional
question be involved in the case. That
is. that the State may be arragned IN
her corporate capacity and compelled
bv the process Of the court TO do what
ever the court would be authorized 10
compel an individual to do.
"What results this will lead on to
mans imagination can foretell. For
Instance, il any landlord unlawiully
keeps me cut OF the premises that l
have leased, and thereby prevents me
from conducting my business and
realizing my legitimate profits. l can
compel him IN court 10 pay me the
damages that he has caused 10 me. II,
then, offer the Stale coupons 10 pay
ment of my license tax for the priv.
lege Of conducting a business and she
refuses them and refuses me my Ii
ceuse, and thereby prevents me from
conducting my business, why shall
she not be compelled under this deci-
sion to pay me the damages that sne
has caused ne by preventing me from
pursuing my usual avocation?
"Agaln. Why may not citizen of
Virginia owning $500 of coupons file
creditors bill against the State in be-
half of himself and all other citizens OF
Virginia similarly situated to compel
the State TO perform her contrac. BY
receiving the coupons from all tax.
PAYERS who desire TO pay their taxes
with them?
1T scenes 10 me that, it being con.
ceded that the court can lay its hand
upon the State, can acquire jurisdiction
OF the party, every consequence must
follow il the suit were against an in.
dividual, and that the court must mould
its process 10 suit the emergency Of the
case, so that full and entire justice
SD all be compelled.
81 shall proceed Immediately 10 test
these aud other questions. l shall al
ence file bill on behalf of Messrs.
Havey & Blair 10 compel the State 10
refund TO them the 1904 which she IN
lawfully extorted from them. If the
court compels her 10 do this, it appears
to me that it is all up with readjust-
ment. The creditors may cry out,
'Actum est de Carthdgine.' ~ Bait.
Sun.
THERE Is good deal Of food for
thought in the above. Mr.. Royal re.
pr esents the sincerity of the funder
party, and the boDd-holders who are
bis clients.
1t must be noted that the act Of which
he speaks was passed by the laie legis-
laiure which professed TO excel former
ones in killing coupons, notwithstand-
iDg coupon killer No. l" had been
held constitutional by the highest cour;
10 the land. Bour bonsm simply re-
opened the whole matter by passing
such all act as that OF last winter, and
gave the lawyers new opportunity to-
agitate. Now Mr.. Royal says be has
scheme 10 upset readjustment by the
aid OF this funGer abortion. The peo-
pie should see that unless they care
fully guard what they did after so many
years Of hard work. They will have it
ali to do over again.