The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-05-06

vrpwing prosperity Of the State are more
than sufficient to d'spei all doubts as 70 '"c
solyency OF our new 3.per-cent. bonds.
Moreover, oil fluctuations OF the market
should be noted and explained, so as 20
countpract depressious and augment au-
| yanccs. thus protecting the holders OF our
bonds against the assaults OF spectators,
1 OF whom they are now undoubtedly Tue
iyicYims. Such action would at once ouash
, al1 stock-jobbing operations In our ia.orite
securities, and efiectually preclude the re-
Iretition OF the present attempt 10 degrees
sbem. which, already successiui, can DC
wore 40 only through our failure 10 take
the field against our enemies IN the worid
| OF finance.
To make the initiative step in this move
ment Is the object OF this writing.
The value OF our new Us IS dependent
| on the ability OF the State to pay the accru-
Jog Interest promptly, and any prospective
| inability to do this must decrease the value
OF the bond.
The recent decision Of Judge Bond In
the case OF smith Us. Greenhow has caused
fear that the use of coupons for the pay
ment oil taxes Will so cripple the revenues
of the State that she will be unable 10 meet
the interest on her bonds.
THIS is next to impossible, for the iol-
lowing reasons:
J.. The decision Of Judge Bond is not
fscy, and an appeal ,ciu De taken al me
proper time. Those familiar with the case
OF Tennessee Us. Sneed will at once recog-
pize the fact that Judge Bond made very
bold step indeed in deciding That coupon
Killer No. 9 is unconstitutional, although
copied almost literally from the act passed
by the State OF Tennessee for the purpose
I f reputation and unanimously sustained
bv the United States Supreme Court IN tue
case cited Again, we must remember lhat
the suit against Greenhow Is suit against
State officer to mulct him in damages Tor
simply executing the laws OF the state, Us
was his sworn duty. This is essentially
suit against the State, and hence cannot be
maintained without her consent.
An examination OF Antont Us. Greenhow
shows that four OF the supreme Court
justices took occasion in that case TO assert
and maintain this very doctrine, though
not essential to the decision OF the case
and it is quite probable that another justice
NAV decide likewise when the point is
raised and argued as distinct issue. Five
justices constitute majority Of .fuH
court. We will advert TO this point In
II Is more important now TO estimate
the probable effect OF Judge Bonds deci-
sion, so long as il stands unreversed.
A review OF the mOditS Operdnd to avail
oneself OF this decision will show that but
few taxpayers will be willing to bear tine
eypense and undergo the mental worry
and trouble incident 10 the proceeding.
His taxes are due in November, and the
officer does not levy until May OF the fol-
lowing year. Then begins a suit in the
proper State court. and this suit must drag
| its weary length along at rules until the
pleadings evolve the Federal question me-
cessary to give the coupon-holder the right
OF removal to the United States Circuit
| Court. The case being finally docketed in
Judge Bonds court must again sleep until
the regular semi-annuaI term arrives. Then
come the endless contests at the trial, and
finally an appeal.
| The hardships, risks, and uncertainties
necessarily incident to such a complicated
and protIacted controversy will surely
make it unbearable to all except a mere
handful OF taxpayers inspired by malice
! towards the State.
The taxpayer gets no taX-receipt, and
during the long period which must elapse
before he even gets a judgment in the in
| ierior court, his affairs will be IN that un-
settled state so deprecated by the very
class OF persons who would be at all likely
to use the remedy. Then comes the an
noyance and publicity incident to the levy
and sale. engagement OF counsel, and the
unfayorable light in which such suit,
other than a teSt-case, Will appear in the
eyes OF the public. which feeling, already
universally prevalent, can and will be in
| teasitied by caustic comments in our repre-
sentative papers.
At the trial comes first the fight on tech
nical points: and one point in particular
will be found a very serious obstacle to the
coupon holder-namely the effect Of the
actual amount in controversy upon the jul
rIsdiction Of the United States Circuit
Court.
In Smith rs. Greenhow the full text OF
| the decision OF the Supreme Court in re-
handing the case to Judge Bond Tor hear
| ing shows plainly that whenever the point
| in question is presented to it the decision
will be that the coupOn-holder has no right
| TO lay his damages at an enormous figure
simply to give jurisdiction to the Federal
courts, and although the plaintiff, as in
| this case, will take pains not to let the re-
cord shog the actual amount in cOntrO-
verSy, what is there TO prevent the State
| from framing her pleadings so as to raise
| that very point as distinct preliminary is
sue? Such action will be in exact accord
ance with the wish Of Judge Bond eX-
pressed while hearing the test case last
week, and those familiar with the ease know
that in future il will be raised that the de-
cision is more than likely to be in favor
OF the State; and ii not, then an appeal will
4. 49, or f1,n how.
| three years.
The case finally being before the jury,
there is nothing to prevent the Common
wealth from profting immensely by the
| trouble il can give the coupon-holder by
framing the pleadings so as to require him
| to prove the genuiness Of the coupons ten
dered, and although this point may not be
raised in the present test case, taxpayers
should remember that the State has en-
ployed special counsel to defend these
cases; that these gentlemen intend to do
their work well, for the eyes of critical
public are upon them. and the innocent
taxpayer who thinks he will meet with no
opposition will be surprised to find what
a remarkable litigious spirit can be cult
waited by weIl-paid, accomplished, and en-
ergetlc lawyers.
From the above We must conclude that
| even were the law settled, which plainly is
not the case, few taxpayers would have
either the inclination or pecuniary interest
and ability to avail themselves OF the rem
edy so lauded by the bondholders and by
those who are now trying 10 depress our
new 3's in order to buy at low figure and
| then profit by the rapid rejection which is
| sure to occur as soon as the mOneyed pub
lic is made thoroughly conversant about
the true state OF affairs.
But the law is not settled. Another APP
peal VIII be taken in this very case Of
Smith Us. Greenhow, and as long as the
case remains undecided by the Supreme