The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-05-14
The Decisions in the Coupon Cases

following interesting statement OF the
scope and meaning of the recent decisions
by the Supreme Court of the
United States in the Virginia coupon
cases
The correspondent of the Wing met to.
day a distinguished Virginia lawyer, who
has been paying close attention to the
Virginia coupon cases, and who can be
relied on to express an honest and non
partizan opinion. He is probably the last
man III the world who would have good
word to say OF the original measures and
methods Of the Peadjuster party. and
therefore sought his opinion, which he
gave very freely.
said to him: Il know you have paid
particular attention to the suits recently
decided in the United States Supreme
Court, and would like to get your views as
to the effect Of those decisions on the rev.
enues of Virginia, and especially their
bearing on TIE license question"
He answered All OF the decisions of
The Supreme Court, from She case Of An
toni rs. Greeuh0W to the present time, in
Guiding the last ease OF Moore rs. Green
and follow each other logically, and make
the whole question perfectly clear | am
therefore surprised that the Virginia
papers have not so far recognized aud pub
lished the facts. They should rise above
partizan consideration, and the people
ought to know bow The Supreme Court
has laid down the law SO plainly that the
wayfaring man, though IL fool, may not err
therein.
In brief, Antoni u.s. Greenhow decided
that the act of January IA, 1882, known as
Coupon-Killer No. !, and on which the
Readjuster party relies to enforce the
Riddleberger bill, violates no contract. in
asmuch as it provides for the adert5fea-
ton of the coupons and Their payment rbea
declared genuine.
The court, however. did not decide in
that case whether tender OF coupons in
stead of money in payment of taxes WAS
valid tender so as to prevent u levy on the
property OF the taxpayer pending the in
vestgati0n OF the genuineness of his cOu
pons that question was left open for u
case where the question could arise.
IN the meanwhile the Democratic Leg
islature very foolishly passed a law for
bidding a suit against an officer who pro-
ceeded to levy pending the Investigation,
and under that statute the case Of Pom
dexter u.s. Greenhow arose. Greenh0w,
collector, made his levy on Poindexters
property, and PoindeXter brought an ac-
tion of detigaie to recover his property, and
the court decided that the Democratic
statute was unconstitutional, null, and
void, and that the suit of PolndeXter Us.
GreenhoW was not suit against the State
of Virginia, but was q suit against Green
how as an individual that the State of
Virginia might have attempted to pass a
law eXeinpting GreenhOw from suit, but
that such Il law, if passed, was unconStl-
tuti0nal. and that GreenhoW was simply q
private individual and q trespasser, hav-
ing no valid law to excuse his trespass.
But this decision does not touch or effect
Coupon Killer No. !. or the Riddleberger
bill
The other cases decided do not vary
the law as laid down i'll the cases above
mentioned, but the case Of Moore as.
Greenhow, decided last Monday,
strengthens and emphasizes the validity
of Coupon Killer No. /. This was u case
of license tax. where Moore had rendered
coupons to the treasurer III payment Of
his license tax as a sample merchant, and
on Greenhow'S refusal to accept the cOu-
pons and give him his certificate Of de-
post. he applied for Il na01ddlRus to COM
pei Greenhow to issue him q certificate
that he had made the deposit required 10y
law; in other words, it was an effort to
compel State official TO perform an act
forbidden by State laws, and the court re-
fused the mdledQmus. and justice Mat
thews, in deliving the opinion of the
court, concurred III by all the judges, eX-
cept Field and Holland, says
This being a case in which by monldd-
mats the plaintiff in error SEEKS TO compel
the officers of the State OF Virginia specih-
cally to receive coupons instead OF money
in payment of license tdGes it comes with
in exact terms of the decision Of q nlQjor5ty
Of this court ~ Anton5 Us. Greenho10, dc-
cordiqg to arhicl plaintiff IN error IS remit
ted to the remedy prou5ded by the act Of jim
udIy IA, 1882. entitled IN act to preuent
frauds upoB the Commonwealth and the
holders Of her securities IN the collection and
disbursement Of rece1lues in other words,
the sample merchant must have his c0u-
pons identified as provided for by the Re
adjuSter law known as C0upon-Killer n O.
l, which law is thus doubly sanctioned as
constitutional by the Supreme Court.
The nett result of all the cases is that
Mr.. Royal, after spending much of the
money of the bondholders, has gained q
decision that the State of Virginia cannot
pass any constitutional law to repudiate
her coupons, but that no power on earth
can force q Virginia official to violate d
Killer No. l.
Under this last decision 10 person OF
corporation requiring license can carry on
business without it, except under heavy
penalties and forfeitureS. and inasmuch us
license expired April 30th, OF course the
whole licensetaX of this year has been
paid in money ii the parties have been
conducting their business since May LIST
and in future the result viii be the same,
because no tax is due until assessment,
and assessment is not made long enough
before May 1st for the applicant to buy
his coupons, make his tender and have his
coupons identified under Coupon Killer
No. /.
! MIR. ROYAL S victory resembles, in SON e
I respects. General Grant S victory over
General Lee in Spotsylvania.-wh where
Grant succeeded III changing has base, after
bloody defeats. to Il point OH the river
James, which he cond have reached with
Lees permission and without the loss of u
man or the firing of a single gun; but,
unlike General Grant, who left General
Lee seriously crippled in resources, Nh
Royal finds that his b0ndholders are de-
moralized, while his foe, the State of Viz
ginia is stronger than ever, and remains
in trench behind her Readjuster bulwark,
! Coupon-Killer No. /, and has received
valuable reinforcements from the United
States Supreme Court
The life of our State Government this
year is therefore due to Readjuster law ;
and in spite Of the unconstitutional acts
Of the Democratic Legislature, the Su-
preme Court has sustained Readjuster leg
islation throughout and condemned Dem
ocratic intermeddling. and yet the Demo
Gratis claim to have all the good lawyers
and are the only respecters of the Consti-
tuition, and the only advocates of the pay
ment Of honest debts.
ns,.., L. Y ..-l-,