Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-03-24
VIRGINIA COUPON CASES.
THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED.


cases was continued in the United
States Supreme Court to-day before
full bench. Attorney-General Blair
Of Virgins, concluded his argument
which he began on Friday last on be-
half Of the State. and was followed by
Ex-Governor Chamberlain, who appear
ed for holders of coupons, and by Hon.
Richard T. Merrick, Of this city. who
argued in behalf Of the State VI sir-
ginia. Acknowledgement Garland, Sen
stor Eyarts, William L. Royal, Esq,
and other distinguished counsel, who
are retained in these cases, were present
in the court.
ATTORNEY g ENBRAB BLAIR.
Mr. Blair contended that there is no
ground for these actions, as the Legisla-
ture of the State Of Virginia has pro-
yidcd the means Of redress for holders
of coupons who may consider that they
have been deprived Of their rights. lie
said that under either the act OF ',anu-
ary 18th or Of January 20, 1882, the
holder Of coupons has the privilege OF
proceeding according to law to secure
his rights. and that under either Of the
acts mentioned, when he satisfies a
Jury of the commences OF the
coupons which he has offered in
payment of taxes, he is entitled to
have the money paid by him under pro-
test refunded. With respect to the
statement made by the bondholders that
the remedy by mandamus has been
taken away from them, Mr.. Blair said
such remedy is not necessary because
the law directs that the collector shall
refund money paid for taxes when the
genuineness of the coupons offered IN
payment shall have been shown. He said
these cases are actions oftrespass against
the collecting officer Of the State for
obeying the laws Of that State, and for
this court to decide in favor Of the
plaintiff would be to destroy the
sovereign authority of the State. Even
now. he said, officers Of the State OF
Virginia had been deferred from the
discharge Of their official duties by the
institution Of these suits against them
in the Federal courts.
EX-GOVERNOR CHAMBEBLAIN-
Mr.. Chamberlain said that three
questions which arise in the considera-
ton of these cases have already been
decided by this court, The court, he
said. had decided that the act Of the
Virginia Legislature of 1871 providing
for the issue of bonds constitutes con-
tract between the State of Virginia and
the holders of the bonds to receive
coupons in payment OF taxes :;
that any subsequent act which
forbids the receiving of those cou-
pons for taxes is unconstitutional
and void. and that it is the right of the
coupon-holder to have his coupons re-
ceiyed in payment of taxes when offered
by him for that purpose. lie pointed
out that the act Of the Virginia Legis-
lature Of January &c, 1889, expressly
forbidS collecting officers to receive
coupons in payment of taxes, and
he added that. if this court
meant what it said in its for
ner decision (Antoni RS. Greenhow),
this act is absolutely unconstitutional
and void. The contract between the
State and bondholders il, he said, pre-
ciscly a. such a contract between in-
diyiduals. The State. in the making Of
the contract. does not make il a a
sovereign. but a. an individual, and
when the taxpayer who holds coupons
tenders them in payment OF taxes he
has done all that 10y contract he
is called upon to do. He said, fur
Their. that if the court will apply
to this contract the principles that are
applied to private contracts the result
will be that the taxpayer of Virginia,
when he shall tender his coupons in pay
ment of taxes. may stand upon that
tender regardless of anything that the
State Of Virginia has provided since
making the contract. In conclusion, MIR.
Chamberlain said that. while the pre-
tence upon which the cOupOn-hOlderS
are required to pay their taxes in cash
while awaiting the verdict of a jury as
to the commences of the coupons
which they first present as payment
is that the State may not be delrauded
by the receipts Of spurious coupons,
the fact is that there has never been
spurious coupon found since the act
of January %, 1882, went into force.
Mr.. MEBRICK
Mr.. Merrick began his argument oil
behalf of the state, but had not con-
cluded it when the court adjourned for
the day. The point stated in that por-
ton Of bis argument made to-day is that
the funding act of the Virginia Legisls-
ture Of 1871. by which those coupons
were created. is unconstitutional for
two reaSons---irSt. because by pro-
yiding that coupons should be receiv-
able bv the State collectors Tor all
debts, dues, and demands, it practically
| deprived future Legislatures of the
right to provide as they should see tit
for collecting the revenue for the
State and. secondly, because II falls
within the inhibition OF the provision OF
the Constitution, which forbidS the
State TO emit bills Of credit. lie ar
gued at great length that the coupons
provided for by the funding act oil
lS7l are really bills Of credit.
| The FIRE in the New Jersey state
| House.
Try telegraph 10 the Dispatch.
TRENTON. \. j.. March 23.-ThC