Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-08-27
ARRAIGNING THE JUDGES.
HoVTHEsTATE WASTREATED
Review er the Coupon Cases in the uust'nss
Court or Acknowledgement OF judges La
than sbd Atkins.

not amcnaOle, as all ObncI puOlC hoh
are. to the criticism Of the press upon
their DEGREES and their conduct, hold
ing that to call them to such account is
to violate the independence Of the
judiciary" This notion is the remnant
OF an old English truth which may have
been all very well in England. There
the kings appointed the judges, and as
kings were almost constantly encroach-
ing on the rights Of the people as estab-
lished by charters and laws which 1t
was the province of the courts to inter-
pref, it was very natural that the peO-
pie should want to be Independent of
power that might be hostile to their
rights. But the judges were never in
dependent Of the Parliament, which
represented the people, and which could
remove them whenever it might choose.
RESPONSIBILITY OF JUDGES.
This bit Of history shows at once
that the dogma can have no application
in Virginia, where sovereignty is sup
posed to reside in the people. Bat
some Of our conservative folks, as they
like to style themselves, seem unable
to grasp this idea. They cannot real
izc that there should be no difference
in the application Of republican prin-
ciples to legislative and TO judicial
officers; that the exaltation of an indi-
yidual to judgeship does notregenerate
him, sanctiiy his errors, condone his
crimes, misdemeanors, or intrigues, nor
perfect his learning; that the Office of
judge is not more important than that
OF legislator; that one may injure the
public by crime, incapacity, or error as
much as the other; and that judicial
responsibility to God and conscience is
but counterpart of the divine right to
cheat and oppress."
ARRAIGNING THEM.
Promising this much by way OF
warning of those reverential, tender
footed souls who, with such judges as
Matthews and Bond and Hughes to
diSillurionize them, do still believe
that the judicial Office enrobes its
incumbents in a sanctity which must
not be profaned by criticism or pub
lie censure, | arraign at the bar OF
public opinion Judges Hon. Thomas 5.
Atkins, Of Richmond, and Hon. Charles
p. Latham, of Lynchburg, who have
lately violated the law prescribing the
mode in which certain coupons shall be
received for taxes in Virginia. But
besides public opinion, whose censure-
impeachment being farce-is the only
punishment for such Federal judges as
! have named, the Constitution of this
State happily provides better remedy
for State judges (Article VI, section
%. page 50, Code Of Virginis) in Civ
ing the Legislature the power to re-
move them from Office on twenty DAYS
notice for cause to be entered on the
journal of each house; AMI to this
penalty these judges have made them
selves liable by having so construed
and executed the statute in regard to
proving the commences Of conSOl and
1910 taX-receiyable coupons as to
amount to denial of justice to the
Commonwealth.
THE LAW THEY PERVERTED.
The law itself, popularity called Cou-
pon-Killer No. l, will be found at pages
10, IL, and 10, Acts of Assembly
lS8l-'S2.
1t was passed by the Readjuster
Legislature. and it was afterwards &C
cepted by the Democratic party and the
Democratic Legislature. 1t has been
declared constitutional by the Supreme
Court in an opinion written by Chief
Justice Waite and cOncurred in for his
own speeial--and still stronger-legal
reasons by Justice Stanley Matthews.
Having prescribed the manner of get
ting before the court such Of the above
denominated coupons {" detached from
the bonds to which they belonged) as
may have been rendered for taxes, the
law directs that in each case the said
coupons, received to be verified, shall
be sealed up and be delivered to the
/ judge of the county or hastings court,
which act entities the taxpayer to file
his petition against the Commonwealth
and to have the issue of commences Of
his coupons tried by a jury, either
party having a right to exceptions on
the trial and Of appeal to the circuit
court and Court Of Appeals.
RICHMON TAXPAYERS WHO
BROUGHT THE SUITS.
OF such suits-all brought prior to
January, 1885, and therefore before
the decision of the coupon cases by the
Supreme Court, which are nevertheless
said to have caused them to be
brOught-t&se which have recently
been decided in our Hastings Court
amounted in face value to only s2j,-
955, embraced in $50 suits brought by
as many plaintiffs, and averaging there
fore sl03.S2 to each plaintiff; state
ment of itself showing the abSurdity
Of the charge that the businessmen of
Richmond are paying their taxes in
coupons since the total individual tax
of Richmond is $lS9, 907. go, paid by
10, 235 tax-payers-that is, the judg-
ments amount to only one seventh part
of the individual taxes, and those who
obtained them are only one sixth part
of the individual taxpayers. Besides
these there are only sixty-one cases to
be docketed to the fall term--a falling
off attributable, no doubt, to the out
rageous decisions of the Federal courts
in April last.
THE JUDGES REBUKED.
This shows that so far from stimu-
lating such suits, as has been claimed,
the decisions of the Federal courts have
actually discouraged them and that
though, as to the far larger part of them
it was vigorously given, yet the pa
triotic and judicious businessmen of
Richmond have faithfully kept their
pledge taken at public meeting in
February last, and called in rebuke Of
Judge Hughes's decision in the case Of
Parsons rs. Marye, &C., &C., not to
pay their taxes in coupons. Indeed, it
is proper to say that for long time no
effort thus to pay their taxes in cou-
pons has been made by any bank, rail-
road, or other chartered company in the
city Of Richmond or in the State, ex-