Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-12-24
THE VIRGINIA COUPON CASES.
Efforts to Get n Broader Decision-PeInts
TO be Presented to the Supreme Court.
From the Baltimore s


From the Baltimore Sun.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2l.-The Virginia
coupon cases, TO come before the Supreme
Court Of the United States in January,
may probably occupy the time OF that
tribunal for several days, as it is under
stood that an extension OF time allowed
for argument will be asked for. There
are six of these cases. presenting similar
features in some instances and different
in others. Briefs have been filed before
the court in behalf Of the coupon tenders
by Mr.. VIM. l.. Royal and eX-GOv.
Chamberlain, and by Attorney General
Blair and Mr.. James V. Brooke Tor the
State officers. The case of Robert r.
Barry VS.. h. q. EdmOnds, Treasurer Of
Fauquier county, which Is the first in
order, is as follows: Barry rendered in
payment of his State tax. $50 Is, coupons
TO that amount. The Treasurer refused
to receive the coupons, and levied on and
sold a horse for the tax due. For this
Barry sues for $4,000 damages. Three of
the other causes are personal 10 Mr..
Royal. who was indicted and fined $50
by the State court for continuing to prac-
tice mis- profession as lawyer after ten
dering coupons for the amount of his
license tax, and, being refused ac-
ceptance, indicted for selling tax
receivable coupons in violation
OF the provisions Of the act of
the Legislature of March 10, 1884, suing
cut writ of habeas corpus now on APP
peal to the Supreme Court, and again in
dicted for violation Of the provisions of
the same act, in bringing suit for client
who had rendered coupons for taxes and
suing out a writ OF habeas corpus,
also on appeal 10 the Supreme Court. The
next case, Chaffin VS.. Taylor, Treasurer
Of HeDrico county, was decided in the
Supreme Court at last term in favor of
plaintiff, and comes back in consequence
Of the failure OF the Treasurer and Tax
Collector, by alleged evasion, to obey the
mandate Of the court. The last cause, ex
parta Sands. arises as follows Sands, a
lawyer by profession. rendered the amount
Of bis lie, nse tax in tax-receivable cou-
pons, which the collector refused 10 ac-
cept. He applied for a mandamus 10 COM
pei the collector 10 receive them for iden-
tihcation and verifioatiOD, which was
refused, and is on appeal TO the Supreme
Court. The modes Of procedure by which
these cases are brought before the SUI
preme Court are sufficiently varied. In the
opinion OF the counsel against the state,
20 secure from the court decision broader
and more comprehensive IN its scope and
effect than the one rendered at the last
term. Or course these anticIpatiOns may
not be realized, for the court Is inhexible
IN the determination 10 permit the intro
duction OF no collateral questions,
but 70 contine itself 10 the strictly
technical points involved In eacn
case. But Mr.. Royal and his associates
know no such word as "surfcnder," and.
as be says, will never give up the fight
until the state recognizes the validity OF
It's just obligations either voluntarily or
through cOmpulsiOn. Mr. Royal says in
his brief that the readiusimont acts "all
together form single scheme, the undis.
Faieed object Of which 10 81 enanle the
State 70 rid Itself Of q considerable por-
tioR Of ~ public debt, and b place the