New-York tribune., 1885-03-21
THE COURTS.
VIRGINIA COUPON CASES.
~ .yat,.sVrr ~, TIE sUrurMF S,s,tfrsr

Five TEST CASES.


Five TEST CASES.
wAsIIINGToS, March 20.--The proceedings
OF the United States Supreme Court to-day were as
follows:
No 5os-Roe stephens plaintiff in error, art sayaoh
Mehlgan Dismissed per stipulation clerks costs In this
NO ao7~Th5 Ea Aiab,ml Railroad Company Pla,uilr
in ogt John pos eI dem wss1eT gI Ind 40 Sss5s as
10 5-homaa Poindertcr plaintiff error sgt samuel
No 5sS-wiiiam White plaintiff in nst. samuel
NO 5SS-samuel Carter plaintiff error sgL Samuel
No e65-p T Moore plaIntlh in error. ast samuel G
no. i3Go-a ChaGln, pLalntin in error aSt william
Taylor Argument begun.
The last mentioned coupon tax from
Virginia n All present the question of the effect OF
tender for taxes OF coupons of the State OF Virginia
OF March 30 1871 and tho right OF the Virginia tax
payer to bring suit for damages against the tax col
Gctor for levyng his property after tender OF such
tax-recevable coupons. In the first three the
State Collector Taxes pleads In justification Of his levy
the act OF the General Assembly Of January 90 1892
and the eighteenth section Of the OF April 1882
and in the fifth pleads in addition the third
ton Of the act OF March 49, 1884 william L. Royal, who
opened the argument to-day for the bondholders stated
| the point at issue as follows;
While the State Of Virginia admits that she cannot
pudate her bonds outright she claims that she may
porary suspend their power while she makes
inquiry and satisfies herself that the coupons offered
really her coupons and simulated coupons and that
pending such period OF suspension she may compel the
taxpayer pay his tax In coin 10 be returned him
when she Is satisfied that the coupons offered really
hers Tho creditor denies this lie insists that her con-
tract ia not contract that she will receive the coupon
ted days after 1t Is offered any other number days
after offered but that she will receive 1t when 1t Is
offered.
| Mr.. Royal maintained that by the language of tho
States cOntrac by the four decisons OF Supreme
Court and by the two decisions OF the United states
preme Court the coupon legalender for the tax
Mr. Il. ). Blair, Attorney General OF Virginia who fol-
lowed for the State maintained rst that the deelara
tOns and bills In all the were insufficient in law
second that the below had pos -ibe iursdc-
ton OF any of them third. that IL Fundamental priu-
cipe In all soyeregnties that State sued al
all unless she consents TO he sued and that the
Virginia had consented to be sued any OF the modes
adopted IN these cases. In any OF the courts In which
they brought fourth that the subject matter OF all
gna aud the receipt OF her coupons therefor and for
this additional reason the courts below should not have
entertained them fth that the writs Of and ap
peals In each Of these should be dismissed as the
amount In controversy In each s less than 50 900 the
jurisdicOna necessary for this court and sixth
that the parties, plaintiff aud defendant an
VI the State and such constitutional questions
arise In OF the viii Justify the nerposition
OF this court.
The argument will be confined on Monday