Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-08-29

FOV,VUu. Dcnib eh' Neoh oihclchSe De-
tween the par value and the fundable
value of these coupons under the Rid
dlebergsr schedule. Indeed, but for the
extra session, which, as ! have said
stopped the mischief by amending
tho act, the State would probably have
lost $3.50. 600, being the product, by the
same calculation. Of all the past-due tax
receivable coupons from July, 1882, to
January, 1886.
(2.) About the lst Of February.
1885, the counsel Of Messrs. Branch (
Co. demanded that ] should fund two
State bondE--one for $500, the other
for 81, 000-which had been rejected
more than twelve months before when
offered TO Mr.. Reveley, at that time
Treasurer Of the Commonwealth, be-
cause they had been stolen after having
been once funded. Admitting that,
Messrs. Branch & Co. claimed to be
entitled to their demand as Jona-fde
holders for valuable consideration.
Upon my declining to fund, the cOun-
sci submitted q written statement of
their claim and the grounds upon which
they based it. On that paper was the
following endorsement
q" | concur fully in the within opinion,
and will add that gave verbal opin-
ion to the same effect TO the late State
Treasurer, Hon. d. Z. Reyeley, upon
the facts stated.
lSigncdl OF. S. BLAIR,
H"Attorhey-Gcn
january &c, 1885"
Reminding the counsel that my law
yer had no right to give an opinion
against me, especially without my
knowledge, said that the opinion of
the Acknowledgement was not decree
Of court, and that should not adopt
it. Thereupon a mandamus nisi was
sued out against me. at once stated
the case to Governor Cameron; he
agreed with me that we could not trust
counsel who bad given a written opin-
ion against US; and he suggested
that ! should engage Judge Burks
which | did. Judge BurkS under
took the case at once, agreeing
TO look to the Legislature for
his compensation; and, upon argu-
mcnt, the Court Of Appeals decided
unanimously in favor of the State. If
| had followed Mr.. Blair's advice it
would have cost the State, at the rate
Of funding the particular securities,
new 3 per cent. bonds, to the amount
of sS59.50.
3D. The case Of Parsons rs. Marye
was tried in Norfolk about the last of
January, 1885. The complainant, Par
sons, who had never offered a coupon
for taxes, and had failed therefore to
bring himself within the terms of the
law of 1871, asked for an injunction to
compel the Auditor and certain collect
ing officers of the government to re-
ccive his coupons when offered for
taxes by any one else. Ignoring the
act Of 1871. which made these coupons
receivable from a taxpayer or other
debtor TO the State, and ignoring also
Coupon-Killer No. |, which required
the coupons when rendered for taxes
to be verified, Judge Hughes, on Feb
ruary IL, 1885, ordered, in advance
Of any such tender, that the coupons
belonging to Parsons should be re-
ceived for taxes. Upon a tender of
coupons to Mr.. $. 6. TinSley under
that order he waited upon Attorney
General Blair for advice, with the re-
suit given below:
"RICHMoND, VA, Aug. 81, IS.
have to state that ! have taken
coupons for license-tax under an order
of the United States Circuit Court,
dated Norfolk, February II, 1855. in
the case Of Parsons rs. Maryc, and Thu.
after full consultation and advice of the
AttoIney-General.
lSigneG IS. G. TINsLEY.
" Assist Treasurer City Richmond
SO Mr.. Blair. who told Mr.. Tinsley
he could not advise him to put himself
in contempt, gave up the case. Upon
notice Of this, the Commissioners of
the Sinking Fund engaged Judge Wal
Ter r. Staples as the counsel for the
State, with the understanding that they
would pay his fee if the Legislature
should decline, the Secretary Of the
Commonwealth, Judge II. W. Flour |
noy, joining them in this engagement
This was An important matter. Under
such a decree every coupon-holder
could have forced his coupons on the
State in Judge IIughes's accommola-
ting court. 1t would only have been
necessary to keep the value Of each
case under Sj.000-that would have
kept them all out Of the Supreme
Court.
1t was a clear knowledge Of this that
caused the leading businessmen Of the
city to hold meeting, in which, pro-
testing against the decree, they pledged !
themselves, in writing, not to buy, or
pay taxes in, coupons.
Judge Staples * once arranged to |
have precisely similar case taken to /
the Supreme Court. There he argued |
It; and it was contemptuopsly kicked |
oil the docket, the Court declaring:
" This bill is without precedent and |
should have been dismissed"
1t calls for declaration of an abstract
character. But no court sits
to " determine questions in h,si. -
Lambs Virginia Coupon Cases, pp.
53-54. Here again thousands were
saved the State in case which Mr..
Blair had surrendered to ldge Hughes.
Besides this case, there were seven
others to be tried at the Same-March
and April. lSS5-term Of the court.
In these the bondholders had engaged
MessTs. Royal, Eyarts, Chsmberllinc,
Swsyne, Shelly, Cowen, and Naury,
six Of the seven men Of ability. some
OF them Of great reputation. Called
into the case at the eleventh hour. with
other laborious and conflicting profess
Sional engagements undertaken by con-
tract with the State, Judge Staples
asked that he might have aid. And
the Commissioners Of the Sinking Fund
having seen Mr.. Blair, in less than one
year neglect and lose one case and sur
render three others. did not wait to
take any further risk in him. So thev
opened negotiations with Mr.. Blair,