Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-05-20
wEDNEsDAY.......MAY 20. 1885.
A Question.


The Mahoneites have the impudence
to pretend to believe that it was not
the act Of January 26, 1882, but only
that act Is amended by the Democratic
Legislature Of 1884, which was recently
pronounced unconstitutional by the Su-
preme Court Of tie United States. 1t
is not necessary 70 argue this question.
Here are the words of the Supreme
Court itself in the case Of Poinderfer
%. Cre<nAow. The Court said
~when. therefore. by the act OF March
an ie7i. the contract was made by which
il was agreed that the coupons issued under
that act should thereafter be receivable In
s,ste IN virsipis' and inasnuch as
Nv the Consultation OF the United States.
which 10 also the supreme law OF Virginia,
that coutmct when made became thereby
Interchangeable and irrepeslable BY the
and all other IKE acts (notice that which
deny the obligation Of the contract and
forbid Its performance. are not the acts OF
the State Of virginia"
That 10 are null and void because I'M
constitutional. The syllabus Of the
Supreme Court Of the United States,
paragraph No. IL, reads as follows;
"The suit authorized by the act OF the
General Assembly OF Virginia OF January
26 1859 against the collector Of taxes, re-
hiking TO accept tender OF coupons, 10 re-
cover back the amount paid under protest
n no remedy at all for the breach OF the con-
tract which required biin to receive the
coupons In payment
Paragraph No. IA reads as follows:
"The oct of the General Assembly of Tir-
gfuio on yantarp 26. 1882. and the amenda-
Tory act of March Is. 1854, are unconstitu-
tional and void. because they impair tne
obligation OF the contract OF the state with
the coupon holder under the oct OF Marsn
80. 1871: and that bring The main object Of
ne fsgo acts the vice which invalidates
them pervades them throughout and Ia AL
their provisions. 1t IL not practicable TO
separate those parts when repes a ano so on
the case. and other particular forms OF ac-
don, as remedies for the taxpayer who has
rendered his coupons In payment OF taxes.
from the main object OF the acts when thai
II follows that the whole OF these and SINH
Lar statutes must be declared 10 be unoonsfi-
tutional, null, and void
Again The Supreme Court said:
ITO cocrce creditors holding bonds issued
under the act OF March so, 1871, to ex-
change them for these new tRiddlobe 9erl
bends, at these reduced rates. and with them
interest arising ont Of the receiyability OF
coupons In payment Of taxes, q ne erident
purpose Of The act Of J0nuary 26. 1882 Ma
hone law, and OF March IS. 1884 Demo-
cratic law. The whole legislation In all Its
paris o. to creditors Affected by II and not
cansanftnc N must DrOlOuucft null
and void"
PoINDRxTER brought his suit April
&c, 1888, nearly twelve months be-
fore the act of 1884 was passed II
could not have got into the case before
ii was passed. Now, hear the court
once more:
was drawn In question the validity OF tho
said act OF the General Assembly Of Vir-
ginia, approved January 20, 1882, and Of
The eighteenth section OF the act OF the
General Assembly OF the state OF Virginia.
approved April l, 1879"
Not word about the act Of 1884,
which could not have been questioned
before it was passed. Indeed, the Su-
preme Court travelled out Of the record
and drew it into the case by the heels.
Now as to licenses and the act of the
Democratic Legislature of February IS,
1884. so far as this act was involved in
the case Of Moore rs. Greeakow, we can
only rcpublish our telegram Of May 4.
1t is as follows:
WASHINGTON, May 4.-Justice Matthews
delivered the opinion In the Virginia cou.
pon-iax case OF Moore Is. Greenhow to-day.
t,acpp IN Apr iss4 in the s circuit court Of
the city OF Richmond. praying for man
damus 10 compel the defendant. as Trea-
surer OF the city of Richmond, TO is-se him
a certificate stating that he had made the
deposit required by law In payment OF his
licepse.isx. lie having rendered 70 the
Treasurer coupons cut from State bonds.
aud the tender having been refused. and
the writ prayed for having been refused by
70 The supreme Court OF Appeals the judx-
ment OF the lower court having been AZ
nrmed. the case was brought to this court.
Justice Matthew. IN detiv .n,L the opin.
IN which by . msBdamus II ID sought 10
compel the officers OF the State OF Virginia
specifically 10 receive coupons instead Of
money IN p0ymout VI nccuSc-taAecs "
comes within the exact terms OF the de-
cisloa Of the majority OF this court in An
toni "a. Greenhow. according TO when
plaintiff In error Is remitted TO the remedy
provided by the act OF January Ia. 1852.
The Judgment Of the Supreme Court OF APP
peak Of Virginia Is therefore affirmed.
The best answer to the claim that the
license act has been pronounced uncon-
stitutional is the fact that we have heard
Of no licenses having been issued which
were NOT paid for in money. That
would seem to indicate that the law is
IN full force. At any rate, nobody viii
complain SO long as all licenses shall be
paid for in money.
------------------------