Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-05-16
SATURDAY............MAYl 6, 1885
Northern Prejudice.

Tyibune,-which reproduced few
DAYS ago General MAHoNE's letter to
Senator MILLER, the following para
graph:
In respect to the methods chosen
for securing the new settlement, Ten
eral Malone shows that they did not
deprive the creditor Of a straightforward
legal remedy, and that the Supreme
Court in one Of the recent cases has so
decided. But here again the acts OF the
Malone party are commonly contound-
ed with those Of the Democratic party
after its recovery Of power, and the let
ter of Senator Malone points out with
great force that the most odious and
flagrantly dishonest measures in the
whole history of reputation were those
enacted by the Democratic Legislature
last year. which the Supreme Court has
recently held unconstitutional"
The " straightforward legal remedy"
alluded to by the Tribune is, we take
it, Coupon-Killer No. |, which is still
in force. The Tribune of course can
not refer to the illegal remedy"
afforded by the MALONE Legislatures
act Of January 26. 1882, since the
Supreme Court has denounced that act
as unconstitutional. null, and void.
II that coupon-killer is "a straight
forward legal remedy" why may not
the Democrats rightfully avail them
selves Of its provisions? Is it right
for MALONE and wrong for them to
acquiesce in the RIDDLEBERGER set
Element? Is it crime in them and a
duty in MALONE to require the cou-
pons to be proved to be genuine? Is it
n crime for them to require all licensesto
be paid for in money, this requirement
being made for the avowed purpose Of
compelling the bondholders to fund
under the Tribune's much-lauded set
Element. the MAHoNE-RIDDLEBER-
GER bill? Is it wrong thus to under
take to force the bondholders to fund ?
Why, that was the object of Coupon
Killer No. THE law which the Tri-
6une vouches for as afiording "a
straightforward legal remedy
Again The Tribune asserts by i'm
plication that the Supreme Court Of the
United States in its recent decisions in
the Virginia cases did not pronounce I'M
constitutional any of MAHoNE's laws,
but did so pronounce all of the mea-
sures adopted by the Democratic Legis-
lature Of last year whereas the fact Is
that the law Of the Democratic Legisla-
ture requiring all licenses to be paid for
in money is in full force and has saved
the State from a much worse condition
Of things than now prevails, and the
Supreme Court did IN terms pronounce
unconstitutional the act Of January %,
1882, passed by MALONE Legislature.
The court said;
ITO coerce creditors holding bonds
issued under the act Of March 80, 1871,
TO exchange them for these new Rid
dlebergerl bonds, at these reduced
rates, and with them to give up their
security for the payment of interest
arising out Of the receivability Of cou-
pons in payment Of taxes, is the eri-
dent purpose Of the act Of January %,
1882 IMahone's lawl, and of March
IS, 1884 democratic lawI. The
whole legislation in all its parts as to
creditors affected by it and not consent
ing TO il must be pronounced null and
void"
This " fsgrantly dishonest mca-
sure" Of January 90, 1882, was the
work Of a MALONE Legislature. What
does the Tribune suppose was the ma
ture Of that ctg--that act which 1t, by
implication, declares was not "most
odiops and flagrantly dishonest mea-
sure? We quote few lines from
that act. 1t begins as follows:
"Beit enacted, &C., That the severa
tax.collectors Of this Commonwealth
shall receive in discharge of the taxes
license taxes, aud other dues, gold, sill
yer. United States Treasury notes, ma
tional-bank currency, and nothi".
else"
II then went on to provide how
taxpayer wishing to pay in coupon
should proceed in court in order to sc
back his money; but as the entire &C
was pronounced unconstitutional by tn
Supreme Court, we need not state it
provisions.
That MALONE law, we repeat, is tn
law which the Supreme Court pre-
nounces unconstitutional, null, an
void. Is that a dishonest measure :"
II not, then the Virginia Legisls
turc has passed no dishonest measure
none whatever; for the Democratic la
Of March Is, 1884, pronounced uncor
sii,utionsl by the Supreme Court, wa
law which merely provided, frs
what should be done with coupons 10
fered for taxes before and after the
were proved 10 be genuine, and, seconC
ly. that no action Of trespass or trespa'
on the case should be brought or mali
tsined against any collecting officer.
Now. INIT Dir. wHITELAw REL
in an epsiable predicaments lie Ell
dorses General MAnoSE's letter ;
Senator MILLER. And yet, taking tn
recent deci,ions rs q test. the onl
"odious and fisgrsntly dishonest inca
cure" Of the Virginia Legislature wa