Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-03-25
VIRGINIA COUPON CASES.
THE ARGUMENT YESTERDAY.


Cessmeseet.
Especial Telegram to the Dispetch-l
WASHINGTON, u. c., March a.
In the United States Supreme Court to-
day Mr.. Merrick concluded the argu-
ment begun by him yesterday on behalf
of the State Of Virginia in the coupon
tax cases. lie was followed by MIR.
Swayne, who argued the cases for the
and by Attorney-Genersl
Garland. who appeared on behalf Of the
State. In continuing his argument to-
day Mr.. Merrick cited numerous authori-
ties in support Of the theory advanced
by him yesterday that the coupons OF
the character Of those provided for by
the funding act Of 1871 are really bills
of credit, and fall within the inhibition
Of that provision Of the Constitution OF
the United States which forbids States
to emit bills Of credit. He then ad-
dressed himself to the question Of the
jurisdiction OF the court in these cases.
and contended that the court is without
jurisdiction, this being really suit
against the State Of Virginia, though
nominally against the tax-collecting
officers OF the State. The defence
upon which the State, he said, is willing
to rest the case is that under the local
laws of Virginia these actions OF tort
against collectors could not be main
tanned. He admitted that the other
side claims that the law of the State
which forbids these actions is null aud
void, because it is in conflict with the
fourteenth amendment Of the Constitu-
ton Of the United States, which says
that no person shall be deprived of his
property without due process Of law (;
but he pointed out that the prohibition
of these actions of tort against collectors
is by due process Of law. The State, he
said, has, by the acts Of 1892 and 1884,
undertaken to have the claims against it
OH these coupons audited, and it has
provided that no act Of trespass shall be
brought or maintained against an Off
Ger for enforcing the provisions OF those
laws. Such acts, he argued, are not i'll
cOntrayention of the fourteenth amend
ment to the Constitution, and, he added.
there is no guarantee in that amendment
that property shall not be wrongfully
taken, simply that it shall not be taken
without due process Of law. The act
Of the State, he said, is simply this
That finding that there are spurious
coupons afioat she says to the tax
payer: IL demand that before you
prove your right to pay in coupons
you shall pay me your taxes IN
money" This, he said, was the
act of a sovereign State and can
not be questioned in this court.
Pursuing this line Of argument, he said
There can be nothing more insidious
and dangerous than these attempts that
are being made TO bring States before
this tribunal through the instrumental
ty Of their officers He said he hoped
the court would not yield its assent to
this attempt indirectly to bring soye-
reign State on its knees before this bar,
in contravention of the eleventh article
of the Constitution.
MR.. SwAYNE.
Mr.. Swaync in his argument for the
bondholders said that the contract made
by the State with the boddhclders was
simple. and that the breach of contract
was equally simple. The contract said
that coupons should be receivable IN
payment of taxes. Subsequently acts
Of reputation said they should not be
received in payment Of taxes. The is
sue before the court, he said, is the va
lidity of a contract. The ground Of
appeal is the existence Of spurious cOu-
pons. and the answer TO tins is that the
tender of spurious coupons Is not pay
ment OF taxes, and that it is within
the power of the State to protect
itself against the receipt of spurious
coupons by providing penalties for the
offering Of such in payment of taxes,
He combatted the proposition that
coupons are bills Of credit. They were
never, he said. put in circulation by
the State or sent out for that purpose
As to the assertion of Mr.. Merrick. that
the cOupon-holderS were deprived OF
their property, if deprived Of it at all,
by due process Of law, he said that the
question for the Court to determine is
whether, when a man has offered to pay
his taxes in these coupons, and refused
to pay in money, and his property is
distrained for non-payment of taxes,
that distraint is by due process of law.
lie met the Augment as to the sovereign
right of the State by the assertion that
when rogucS get into possession Of a
State their illegal acts cannot be con-
SideTcd the acts of the State.
ATToRNEY-GENERAL GARLAND.
Mr.. Garland, who followed Mr..
Swayne. replied to the statement about
rogues having been in possession of the
State by saving that that is not the
question for this court TO consider.
This court. he said. has to deal with
legislation, not with legislators. He
supported the contention Of Mr.. Mer-
iick that coupons were bills Of credit.
and cited authorities in support OF
this view. He also held with Mr..
MerYick that these are really suits
against the State. Virginia'S financial
integrity, he said, is here at stake. This
being the case. he conteuded that this
court. nor the courts Of the State of
Virginia, have any authority in this mat
Ter. Although, he said, the other side,
il they had their way. would have this
court bringing the exchequcr OF Vir-
ginia here and appointing u receiver for
the State. Mr.. Garland had not con-
Guided his argument when the court adj
iourncd until tomorrow.