Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1885-06-26
FRIDAY MORNING, JUNE. 2e, 1888

We do not think the United States Court
had any rightful jurisdiction of any of these
1.-THE couponl cases; but conceding the .jarisdic-
ton, we must confess that the April decisions
against the State had full warrant in the Re-
pudiation Bourbon legislation. Reputation
is not Readjustment; and this same Federal
Court had declared, not only that Readjust-
ment was not Reputation, but aoas constits-
tioaa0l and uGlid,-As IT STILL ADJUDGEs.-
Richmoad Wing.
1t is hard to make more sweeping or
more positive statement than is contained
in the above extract. Now let us look at
its foundation. The legislature of 1882
was Republican by large majority. It
was in that legislature that the coupon
killer was passed. That was Republican
not Bourbon" legislation. On the goth
of April, 1885. in the case of Poindexter
Us. Greenhow. the defendant in that
case relied for his defence on the act of
January 26, 1882, Coupon killer No. ~
passed by that Republican legislature
The declsion of the Court was given
against the defendant. Justice Stanley
Mathews delivered the opinion Of the
Court. The official text of that opinion
may be found in 1.-THE Virginia Coupon
Cases" published by the Virginia Law
Journal. This is verbatim extract from
that official text, page IS:
1.-THE ratio deciderdi in this class
of cases is very plain. A defendant
sued as wrong-doer, who seeks
to substitute the State ia his place.
or to justify by the authority OF the State,
or to defend on the ground that the State
has adopted his act and exonerated him,
cannot rest ON the bare assertion of his
defence. He is bound to establish it. The
State is political corporate body, can act
only through agents, and can command
only by laws. 1t is necessary, therefore,
for such defendant, in order to complete
his defence, to produce law of the State
which constitutes his commission as its
agent, and a warrant for bis act. This tn
defendant, in the present case, undertook
to do. He relied on the act of January
18th. 1882, requiring him to collect taxes
in gold. silver, United States treasury
notes, national bank currency, and Moth
ing else, and thus forbidding his receipt
of coupons in lieu of money. That, it is
true. is a legislative act of the government
of Virginia, but it is not a law of the State
of Virginia. The State has passed no such
lasg, for 1t cannot; and auhat it cannot do,
1t certainly. in contemplation of laao. has
not done. The Constitution of the United
States, and its own contract, both ire
pealable by any act on its part, are the
law of Virginia; and that law made it the
duty of the defendant to receive the cou
pous rendered in payment of taxes. and
declared every step to enforce the tax,
thereafter taken, to be without warrant
of law, and therefore a wrong. He stands,
then, stripped Of his official character,
and confessing personal violation of the
plaintiffs rights, for which he must per
sonally answer, he is without defence.
That decision refers solely to the act it
names. passed by a Republican legislature
engrossed by Republican clerk, signed
by Republican Speaker and approved by
a Republican Governor. And yet the
Whiq in the face of this claims that the
April decisions of the U. s. Supreme
Court "had full warrant in the Repudia-
ton Bourbon legislation We shall new
er, like the WING, even for the sake of
argument, "concede the jurisdiction" nor
admit the "full warrant" of the Federal
Courts to collect the debt of Virginia for
her creditors. We do not concern our
selves much however, about this Federal
interference. The people of Virginia
have resolved to pay what the Riddleber-
ger bill calls for, and there is no machin-
cry vet invented nor that can be invented,
by which the Federal Courts can make
them pay dollar more than they are will
ling to pay.