Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1885-05-22
NONE so BLIND As THOSE WHO WILL
NOT SEE.

have discovered that the Supreme
Court of the U. S. has rendered
another decision on the debt legls-
lation of our state since the cases OF
Poinderter and others which seemed
for the time to Overturn the " Rid
dleberger" bill. For the benefit
of those who cannot ascertain
what does not suit them, we ap-
pend the opinion of the court, re-
ferred to editorially in the HERALD
of last week;
?. T. Moore, Pitt. in Error, In error TO- to the ne
We. Supreme Court OF
saml. c. GreenAow Treas Of Appeal. Of 'he
the City Of Richmond. State OF NhgihA'
MAY 4th, 1851
Mr.. Justice Mathews delivered the
opinion of the Court.
The plaintiff in error filed his. petition,
on April Goth, 1854, in the Circuit Court
of the City of Richmond, against Green
how, the defendant, as treasurer OF the
City Of Richmond, praying for rule n's''
commanding the said Greenhow to show
cause why peremptOry mdRd0mas shOulu
not be awarded TO the plaintiff, command
ing the said treasurer, to issue 20 the pc
titiOner certificate IN writing statlng
that he had made the deposit required BY
law in payment Of his license tax, a. 3
sample merchant in said city. The Pc
tition set forth that the tender made IN
payment Of this deposit consisted OF eou-
pons cut from bonds issued by the state
Of Virginia, and, by contract with the
state therein declared, receivable in pay
ment Of all taxes, debts. demands and
dues to the State, and that the tender was
refused by the treasurer, and certncale
of deposit withheld, because the ll1th
section of an act Of the General Assembly,
of Virginia, approved March 10Th, 1854,
for the purpose Of assessing taxes on per
sons, property, aud incomes and lloenses,
REQUIRES that all license tax shall be paih
in gold or silver coin, United states
treasury notes, or national bank notes,
and not ia coupons, and another act OF the
General Assembly Of the State, approved
March 9TH, 1854, TO regulate the granting
of licenses, likewise fOrbids the payment
of license taxes in coupons.
The alternative writ prayed for was
denied by the Circuit Court Of the City OF
Richmond, aud, on 0 petition for writ
Of eraOr, its judgment dismlsslng the
petition therefor was affirmed by the
supreme Court of Appeals Of the State.
This being q case in which, by mdRdam9s,
the plaintiff in error seeks to compel the
officers of the State OF Virginia specihcai-
ly 10 receive coupons instead OF money IN
nayment of license taxes, II comes within
the exact terms Of tue decision OF ma-
iority of this court in 4RtORI v. GTeeHbep'
lO7 u. $. 100, according to which the plain
tiff in error is RENTED TO the remedy pro
vided by the act of January l4th, 1857,
entitled AN act TO prevent frauds upon
the Commonwealth aud the holders OF her
securities ia the collection and disburse
ment Of revenues
The Judgment of the Supreme Court oil
Appeals Of Virginia is, therefore,
Mr.. Justice Field and Mr.. Harlan ad-
here TO the views expressed in their dis
sentine OpiniOns, in 4HtORi v. GTeeHhOw,
but they agree that the principles an,
nounced by the majority in that case, II
applied 10 the present case, require an
allrmance Of the judgment below.
1t will be observed that the pet
case of funderism, which gave so
much pleasure to their masters
abroad, was decided April Goth.
The above is of May 4th. Verify
were the rejOicingS of the Shylocks
limited.
To fully comprehend this matter
as it now stands the reader must
understand that GreenkO,C is treas
urer of the city of Richmond, and,
therefore, the suits are all against
him as a tax collector, that city
being the centre of operations OF
funderism and bIokerdOm. The
act of January II, 1882, is what is
commonly called "coupon killer
No. l." an attachment of the Rid
dleberger" bill, which provides
that all coupons rendered in pay
ment of taxes shall be passed upon
by a jury to ascertain their genuine
ness. The act of March Z, 1884,
is the "license act" of the late
bourbon legislaturs,w which attempts
a repeal of the coupon receivability
feature of the old funding bill and
the McCullOch bill in language
exactly the same that was passed
upon and declared unconstitutional
over ten years ago.
Under this last act the cases OF
Poinderter and others against
GreenhOv we're made up, and the
act was adjudged to be violative
of the constitutional provision
which forbids the passage of laws
impairing the obligation of a
contract.
We may here remark that from
the inception of this " license act"
we have held that it was but an
ingenious design to kill the debt
settlement under pretense of pro-
noting it. We believe yet that
such was the purpose Of a large
number who propounded the scheme
or bill. We also believe that many
unsuspecting and Overcredulous
men fell into the trap, and as
particans became its advocates.
But further explanation is proper
TO be made so that in future dis
cussion of the subject our readers
may he acquainted with it from the
beginning.
The case of AntOHi V. GreeHhO,o is
the one in which the Supreme Court
nearly three years ago held coupon
killer No. /, to DC constitutional by
the same Justices, with the same
dissentients, as appear in the Moore
case above reported.
The latter case is TO our mind
completely explanatory OF the
whole situation. In the cases OF
POindeTter aud others the court
held the bourbon act uncOnstitn.
tional because it operated in their
opinion repeal of what is further
held to be contract between the