The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-02-19
The Coupon Decision.


in the case of Parsons against the Audi
tor, &c. To assume that the action of /
the court was usurpation is eminently |
hasty and unjust. While we regret ex-
sceedlnglyH the necessity which brought
about that decision, as weltas the deplora-
BILE effects which must necessarily follow
to the Commonwealth, we can see no JUS
tice or reason in denouncing the court for |
doing what it could not have avoided with |
the case before it. The Legislature OF
1871 made what has been declared by the |
courts to be a contract with the creditors |
of the State. and made the coupons at
tached to the bonds provided for ia. the |
Funding Bill of that year, legal tender |
for all taxes and demands due the State. of |
whatever nature. The Legislature of |
1882, Readjuster, in order to protect the I!
Treasury from the flood of coupons, genu-
inc and fraudulent, which were pouring in
and paralyzing every interest of the Com
monwealth. passed a bill requiring the
holders Of coupons TO prove their genuine
ness before they could be received, and
WiliC tulS pAOul woo 10
pay into the Treasury, the araount of the
taxes due in money, to be refunded on the
proof OF commences of the coupons being
established. The validity of this legisla-
ton was tested in the Supreme Court Of
the United States, and that tribunal de-
clared the opinion that it did not impair
the contract made in lSzl-that the State
had the right to protect herself against
fraud, so long as remedy was given the
coupon holder in the State Courts to purge
his coupons of fraud and establish their
genuineness. The Legislature of 1884,
Democratic, undertook to improve, ,ssen
this legislation, and in doing so Virtually
repealed it. and placed itself in direct
conflict with the Supreme Colaa. in prac-
tically multiplying the copasaet with the
creditors created in 1871, at passed bill
instructing all the tax agents of the State
not to receive for ta.sas anything but gold,
silver, or national Tank currency and tix-
ing penalty f.,r the violation of the ACT.
1t also enacted, a law forbidding attorneys.
under severe penalties, from instituting
suit to eaforce the receiyability of COLI
pons for taxes. This legislation lgas pal
pabls violation of the contract made with
the creditors in 1871, stipulatig- for the
coupons as tax-paying agent, and which
had been sustained by the highest court.
The coupon-kiiler legislation of 1882
enacted by the Readjuster Legislature anvil
declared constitutional by tine Supreme
Court was PRACTICALLY repealed by the
Democratic Legislature of 1854, forbidsEing
the receptioNaf coupons for taxes. as Pho
yided in the enactment of 1871. 1t con-
templatel a practical violation of that con-
tract, and opened the way for the coupon
holder to approach the Federal Cougts to
make the test whether the legislation of
1884 repudiating the contract. or The deci-
sion OF the Supreme Court Of the. United
States, was to stand. The case was clear
one ana Judges Bond and Hughes could
have brought in no other decision, consis-
tent with the constitute ian and the oaths
they had taken, than the one they did.
The legislation of 1854. repudiating the
coupons is not law, under the decision of
the State Supreme Court. to say nothing of
the long array of decisions of the United
States Supreme Court. The enactment of
long years, ago specifying what moneys
should be received for taxes, upon which
the Governor relies for his recent order to
the Auditor, &C., was practically repealed
by the legislation of 1871, making coal-
pons tax-paying agent. There were no
coupons to which that law could apply,
and the fact of creating u new kind Of
tax-paying currency, as was done in ISL,
virtually and practically repealed the law
under which the Executive order was is
sued.
So all this clamOr about the uSurpatioM
of the Federal Court is mere fustian.--
The confusion and embarrassment grow
out OF the fact Of the present Legislature
attempting to deal with subject it, did
not understand, and in doing SO to pace
itself in direct conflict with the Constitu-
tion Of the United States and the Geei-
sions of the United States Supreme Court
So long as the legislation of 1882 was un.
disturbed everything was going.on smooth
ly. The treasury was,healthy. the public
schools sustained, the charitable inStitu-
tions unembarrassed. and all the interests
Of the State progressing. When the at
tempt was made by the Democratic Legis-
lature of 1884 to amend and enlarge upon
that legislation, a fatal and deplorable
botch of it was made. 1t is the present
Legislature and not Judges Bond and
Hughes, which ought to be the object oR
tho anath anac Of tho D;c,,o{ob
The House Committee on Foreign Af.
fairs. on the 10Th, made a report, rel-
alive to the dynamite resolutions that
it was unbecoming the dignity sn the
House of Represen tatiyes to assnaaa' that
American citizens had been in any way
connected with these crimes where 10
charges had been made, and that the Com
mittee was unwilling to request an officer
of the government to scarab for proof of
guilt when there was no charges. This is
sensible. There was tao much haste in
adopting the Bayar1. resolution in the
Senate. In fact it oaght not to have been
introduced The position of Senator Rid
dleberger is sustained by the House Com
mittee, and when the matter is considered
free from excitement, the country will
sustain hipa. 1t is something this country
has nothing to DO with, in its present
shape, and wasprecipitate, to say the least
TO push matter through the Senate, which
is liable to be construed that American
citizens are responsible for the dynamite
explosions in London OF course Senator
Riddleberger's SOLITARY vote against the
resolution furnished an excuse for the
Democratic papers of Virginia to villify
and abuse. dim. they thought it would
be popular because the resolution mac
been passed by such a decided vote. But
the second sober thought is placing an
other construction on it, and instead Of
condemning Mr.. Riddleberger is vindi
eating the sagacity Of his vote. 1t vii
not be many months before some of those
who voted for it will want to explain il
away, and idisown the responsibility Of
their own act. 1t was out of place fol