The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-05-14
Continued from FIRST page.

decision Vi ttl6 Cdot bllC oftttN. ~
is made his duty to take an appeal. whether
there be any grounds for an appeal or
whether there be not. With the thousands
of appeals thus forced into the Court OF
Appeals, how is it possible to make the
remedies provided for available ltwould
take century to hear all the appeals
which the suits of one year would bring up.
It'll. If the taxpayer. discouraged by
these impediments, determine that he Will
abandon all hope OF actually paying his
taxes with his coupon, and stand upon his
tender OF it. thus using it as q barrier be-
tween the State and himself, he finds his
situation no better. The Act Of January
10Th. 1882, p. 81. So, forbids any court to
grant him an injunction to restrain the
State officers from Selling his property
for his tax, although he has rendered her
coupons IN payment Of it and the Sd sec
ton of chapter AL Acts 18S3-S4, p. 527,
forbids him to sue the officer for his tres
pass in Selling his property after he has
rendered him coupons in payment OF his I
tax. He, therefore. has no redress what /
ever
Thus the owner of one of the States /
coupons is absolutely boycotted. so far as
it is within the power of the Legislature !
of Virginia to boycott him. OF all per- |
Sons in the world, he is the only one who
can claim no protection from the law, and
the law places him absolutely outside OF
its pale. On what principle can IT be
shown TO be crime, SO very heinous IN its
nature, for one of Virginia S taxpayers to
own one of her coupons?
1t will be at once seen. by a perasal OF
these acts, that the late Legislature have
emasculated and virtually repealed the
remedies given to the coupon holders by
10 II of nd fbnC tbnN
have taken away the foundation stones
upon which the decisions in the cases of
Antopi VS.. Greenhow and Tennessee VS.
Snead rested. Bearing in mind the fact
that during the time that these remedies
remained in force, untouched and unmed-
dled with. the eoupon-holders, III order to
enforce the reception of their coupons,
asserted their rights in accordance with
the provisions of said acts, in the State
courts. and they were deferred from re-
sorting to Federal tribunals, even if they
could possibly have done so, because the
Supreme Court of the United States had
decided these remedies to be adequate,
sufficient and convenient for the bondhold-
er and CONSTITUTE onal. 1t will appear that
the alterations of these remedies in the
specified acts of the Democratic Legisla-
ture just referred to opened the doors OF
the Federal courts for the consideration of
the'question whether the aUhole debt leg
islation, thus shorn Of those very elements
and conditions, which caused the Supreme
Court to declare them constitutional, was
not violatiye of the obligations of the con-
tract between the State and her creditors
under the act of 1S70-7l. And at once the
counsel of the bondholders instituted suits
in the Federal courts to establish the I'M
constitutionality of all these amendments
and of the whole debt legislation. which
had thereby been so injuriously altered
and when these suits reached the Su-
preme Court of the United States lately
the whole question was brought before
that court for its consideration, and the
result is as has already been stated
If this be true. then 1T clearly follows
that the acts of the late Democratic Cen
eral Assembly have produced the lamen-
table financial condition in which Virginia
has been placed by the coupon decisions
recently rendered by the Supreme Court
Of the United States. No matter what
were the motives Of the Legislature
whether they .passed these laws through ig-
norance, or for partizan purposes, or fac
tiousy. with the intention of strengthen
ing the claims of the bondholders, or with
the mistaken Idea of beneliting the State
it makes no difference the effect is the
same. But we will not undertake now to
criticise the motives Of the Legislature.
We prefer to let good Democrat speak
of them.
Col. Maury says:
| contend. however. that this new rene
dy has really been repealed, perhaps
through inadyertence, perhaps ignorantly
for what may not be Presumed OF q Legis-
latnre capable of passing the laws just n.
luded to? The last tax bill, approved
March Is, 1884. facts 1851 p. SOB, & III,
114,) provides that all taxes assessed
therein shall be paid only in money, (Sll2l
and that all inconsistent acts and parts OF
acts are repealed (S Ia. AS any payment
of taxes with coupons, under the act OF
January, 1882, is certainly inconsistent
with the above provision, that no tax
shall be paid save in money, 1t seems
that. among the many other remarkable
proceedings of the last Legislature, they
have actually repealed the very act which
they were blindly endeayoring to strength.
en-. Whom the gods destroy they first
make mad
The people of Virginia. too, will judge
of their motives and their acts, and they
will declare in November next whether
these legislators, who have put the State
in this slough of financial despond" in
which she is now laundering, are the
proper leaders to be continued at the helm
of affairs to help her out of it.