The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-04-30
The Coupon Decision.

The Coupon Decision.
The full text of the opinion Of the
United States Supreme Court. in the Viz
ginia coupon cases, recently given, has not
been furnished, as yet, to the public. The
synopsis already given Of the opinion 81
the majority of the Court, and that OF the
dissenting opinion of the minorlty,are suif-
GENTLY full, however, ifaccnrate.to lead TO
an intelligent conception OF what they are
and their purport.i 1t is assumed by some
of oar contemporaries that the Riddleberger
bill was not passed upon in either case
That is true, isasmuch as the questions
growing out of the tax recelvaole cou
pons were alone presented for adJudica-
tion. But as the Riddleberger act, when
is a mere statement of the de0t OIL the
State. depended for its enforcement upon
the legislation affecting the coupons, any
decision of the courts in relation TO theth'
is substantially IA decision affecting the
hill itself. The bill was imperative III I'D
formulation of the debt, unless the leglsia-
ton practically disqualifying the coupons
| was operative. so the opinion OF the eoule
AGAINST the coupon killers was in effect
an opinion against the act ITSELF affeStlps
it's purpose and destroying its vitality.
The dissenting opinion of the Court
was not addressed TO the constituUlohaiit!
Of the legislation affecting the coupons
# was directed to the question OF Saan9
the. state. It assumed that suit ihstl-
tinted AGAINST an officer of the State, IN MS
official capacity and his connection with
the receipt of the coupons for taxes, WAS
emit AGAINST the State, and consequently
obnoxious to the XI amenalhehe vi .he
constitution In the decision OF 1855 IN
the ease of Antoni KS. GreenhoW the
only question presented was the remedy
whether the coupon legislation OF 1882 TOOK
away the remedy of the coupon holaefs
The Court decreed that it dld not,
although the practical effect OF the ',cou-
non Killers was to destroy the coupon as
a tax.paying agent. 1t was decree baseo
nnon a technically. and it was only when
| the legislation of 1884 took away the rem
e1y. that this technicality was dismissed
The technical question OF jurisdiction
was that upon which the court divided OF
the Goth inst. Had the right to sue thf
State not been at issue, and only the actE
of legislation looking to the practical dis
ability of the coupons been considered
the opinion of the Court would have beer
uttered by unanimous concurrence. I'm
legislation of 1884 forced this issue, ant
the Court, having assumed jurisdiction
could have reached no other conclusiCl
than it did.
The Riddleberger bill properly state
the real debt of the State, and but for tn
commons provided for in the funding bill o
1871. declared to be Il contract, there woul'
he no difficulty in the way Of solution
| the matter. 1t is the coupon question
which has to be dealt with. And as th
Supreme Court has practically decide
that all legislation looking to circumyen
. ton or reputation of that contract IS un
: constitutional, it will remain for the stat
TO consider the subject in that light an
: suggest such relief as the necessities O
the situation may demand. And in dom
so. it should not be forgotten that the dis
senting opinion is predicated upon mer
technical discrimination as to jurisdiction
: involving the remedy and not as to the an
: anus Of the coupon legislation. 1t Wi
not. therefore, be wise policy to mistak
or overlook this fact. What the peopl
want is a final disposition of the Who'll
question, without the implication or suS
) picion of purpose to repudiate anythln
= the State really owes. The creditors,
well. should be mindful of this and haY
= some respect for the sincere and homes
convictions of the Taxpayers. who al
firm in the belief that the funding bill
1871 was the result OF a misstatement
/, facts. as well as of corrupt agencies III II
= adoption, and that it provided for
amount of debt the State does not o"
and is not willing to pay, even were 81
able to do SO. The creditors should welg
/" well all the facts of the case, and al
/ proach the whole subject with due II
y gard to their own interests and those
= the people who are eq ually interested
% an equitable adjustment OF the VINO
!, matter.