Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-04-21
A SWEEPING DECISION.

A SWEEPING DECISION.
The Parsons Case Dismissed, But the Coulter
Stuck Deep In the Others lis Virginia
Helpless!
Especial from q staff Correspondent
WASHINGTON, d. c., April 90:
The Supreme Court Of the United States
was crowded with yirginians to-day.
and the decision arrived at by bare
majority of the body knocked the breath
out of most all. The Parsons case,
which was argued by Judge Staples,
was dismissed with a few words only.
The court could not approve of that sort
of proceeding, but made up for it by
sticking their coulter as deep
in the ground as it could 60
in the Poindexter case. Justice Mat
thews tried to make it so plain that
nobody could ever hereafter question
it that the coupons are as good as coin,
and that no legislation could be coun-
tenanced which attempted to rob them
of any part of the value in which they
were clothed by tn terms Of the fund
ing bill. lie said that the points to-day
passed upon were expressly reserved in
the opinion in Antoni against Greenhow.
He quoted from that opinion to prove
that the court then and there declared
that coupons "should be received for
taxes" Beyond that there was very
trifing mention Of that act Of Assem-
bly, which this court approved allowing
The State of Virginia to scrutinize cou-
pons to ascertain if they are bogus or
genuine.
| have asked several lawyers who
heard the opinion read if that act re-
mains in force with unimpaired virtues,
and they say they don't see how it can
be after the pronunoiamento Of to-day.
ONE HOUR AND TWENTY MINUTES.
II took one hour and twenty minutes
for Justice Matthews to read his opin-
ion, and the rule Of this court is that
nobody shall make copy of an opinion
until it is printed no copy can go out
until the opinion is in print in sheets.
In this case that will be about two
weeks, and until that date those who
want to discuss the profoundly nice
points involved will have to wait.
Meantime readers Of the Dispatch may
rely upon the synopsis above as correct
and as giving the salient points decided.
Justice Matthews lays great stress
upon the fact that the receivability fea-
ture Of the coupons was the main in
ducement offered bondholders to fund,
and in the default of Virginia in the
payment Of interest promised it became
her duty to receive these coupons for
taxes, They were made legal tender
for taxes, and became an interchangeable
measure of relief, and were put in a
position of equality and value with
money. That detinue was a proper
remedy in the Poindexter case the
court had no doubt. The plea
in several Of these cases that the Off
Ger was not wrong-dOer though
the State may be, was severely con-
demned. The officer cannot simply
plead that he acts by authority Of law.
lie is bound TO produce his warrant of
law. The State has passed no such
law, for it cannot. The Federal Con-
stitution prohibits it. The law makes
it the duty Of the officer to receive
coupons for taxes. If he fail to obey
it he stands stripped Of official au-
thority. The State is ideal, intangible,
and it is only through her
officers that she can be reached.
BACK TO THE WAR.
The war in 1861 was not war be-
tween States, but war of the United |
States Government against usurping
powers. When the Legislature made
a contract that the coupons should be
receivable for taxes il acted within the
scope Of its authority. The contract
became unchangeable. These anti
coupon acts are not the acts of the
Commonwealth-the true and real Com
monwealth-but are wholly without
and are just as if they never
had been. The defendant, therefore, is
not her agent, but is acting contrary to
The express agreement and law of Vir-
einia. The plaintiff, in fact, is acting
Tor her, as he is here trying her laws.
The State is not named in the record.
The State is not necessary part in the
proceeding.
IMMUNITY FOR wRONG-DoING.
Referring to that provision Of the
Federal Constitution upon which coun-
'el for the defendant so muchrelied, the
'ourt went on to say that the humanity
If the State for wrong doing finds no
support in the Federal Constitution. To
accomplish that requires new amend
nent, so that she shall not be allowed
o impair the obligations of any con-
racts but her own. The court would
Tot agree to the proposition that no
Iested right is taken away because the
when his coupon is re-
used, could pay in money and then
ne for the return Of the money.
That was not what the contract
allied for. The coupon was to be as
God as money-was to be the same as
money for tax-paying purposes. The
ax-payer has the right to say that he
vill not pay the amount the second
line even for the purpose of receiving
he money back. Take away the rem {
dy for the enforcement Of a right and
ou take away the right itself. All the
avs Of Virginia on the subject Of cou-
ons were more or less quoted. After
he preamble Of the Riddlebcrger bill
nd some Of the "ceupon-killers" had
cen quoted, the opinion went on to say {
seemed to be q plan to get away with
considerable part Of the public debt