Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1885-05-15
Full Review Of The United States Supreme
Court Decision BY an Able and
DSinlerasted Lawyer,
THE READJUsTER FLAG STILL FLYING
OyER FORT COUPON KILLER no. l.

MA lawyer,who has been paying
close attention to the Virginia cOu-
pom cases, and who can be relied
onf to express ~ honest and non
partizan opinion. He is probably
the last man in the world who
wonld have a good word to say II
the original measures aud methods
OF the Readjuster party, and !
therefore Sought his opinion, which
he gave very freely.
sand TO him: "Lknow you have
paid particular attention to tue
suits recently decided in the United
States Supreme Conrt, and would
like to get your views as to the
leHect OF those decisions on the
revenues OF Virginia, and especia-
ly on their bearing on the license
question"
He answered " All Of the deci-
sions of tho Supreme Court, from
the ease OF AntOni rs. GreenhOw to
the present time, including the last
case of Moore rs. Greenhow, decid-
ed last Monday, are consistent and
follow each other logically, and
make the whole question perfectly
clear. am therefore surprised
that the Virginia papers have not
so tar recognized and published
the facts. They shonld rise above
partizan consideration, and the
people ought to know how the Su-
preme Court has laid down the law
SO plainly that the wayiaring man,
though a fool, may not err there
in
Sin brief, Antoni rs. Greenhow
decided that the act of January Ii,
1882, known as Coupon-Killer No.
|, and on which the Readjuster
party relies to enforce the Riddle.
berger bill, violates no contract,
inasmuch as it provides for the
identification of the coupons aud
their payment when declared gen
uine.
"Thc court, however, did not
decide in that case whether n ten
der Of coupons instead OF money
in payment Of taxes was valid
tender SO as to prevent a levy on,
the property Of the Taxpayer pend
ing the investigation OF the gnu-
inencss Of his coupons; that qnes-
ton was left open for case where
the question could arise.
ain the meanwhile the DemOcra-
tic Legislature very foolishly pass
ed n law iOrbddng a suit against
an officer who proceeded TO levy
pending the Investigation, and IN.
der that statute the case Of Poin-
dexter rs. GrccnhOw arose. Green
how, collector, made his levy on
POIndeXteTs property, and pm
dexter brought an action Of detinue
to recover his property, and the
court decided that the Democratic
statute was unconstitutional, null,
and void, and that the suit of
Poindexter rs. GreenhOw was not
suit against the State of Virginia,
but was "A suit against Greenhow
as an individual; that the State Of
Virginia might have attempted to
pass law excmpting GieenhOw
from suit, but that such a law. IL
passed, was unconstitutional, aud
that GrecuhOw was simply a pri-
waite individual and a treSpasser,
having no valid law to excuse his
trespass. But this decision does
not touch or affect COupOn-Killer
80. l, or the Rlddleberger bill. Isl
"The other cases decided do not
vary the law as laid down in the
eases above mentioned, but the
case OF Moore uS. Grcenhow, decid-
eli last Monday, strengthens and
emphasizes the validity OF Coupon
Killer No. /. This was a case of
license tax, where Moore had ten
dered coupons to the treasurer IN
payment of his license-tax as
sample merchant, and on Green
how s refusal to accept the coupons
and give him his certificate Of de.
posit, he applied for mdndamus
tn compel GreenhOw to issue him
certificate that he had made the
deposit required by law; in other
words, it was an effort to compel a
State official to perform an act for
bidden by State laws, and the court
refused the mandamus, and Justice
Matthews, in delivering the opin-
ion of the court, concurred in by
all the judges, except Field and
Holland, says: 80 boz
"This being II case in which by
mandamus the plaintiff in error
seeks to compel the officers OF the
state of Virginia specifically to re-
ceive coupons instead of money in
payment of licehse-taxes, it comes
within the exact terms Of the deci-
sion of Il majority of this court In
Antoni rS. Greenhow, according to
which plaintiff in error is RENTED
to the remedy provided by the act
of January IA, 1882, entitled an act
to prevent frauds upon the Com.
monwealth and the holders of her
securities in the collection and dis
bursement of revenues; in other
words, the sample merchant must
have his coupons identified as pro-
vided for by the Readjusler law
known rs CoupOn-Killer No. l,
winch law is thus doubly sanction
el as constitutional by the Supreme
Court.
"The nett result of all the cases
is that Dir. Royal, after Speeding
much of the money of the bond
holders, has gained a decision that
the State Of Virginia cannot pass
any constitutional law to repudiate
her coupons, but that no power on
earth can force Il Virginia official
to violate u statute SO plainly con
sttutiOnal as Coupon. Killer No. |.
q" Under this last decision no
person or corporation requiring
license can carry on business with.
out it, except under heavy penal
ties and forleitures, and inasmuch
as licenses expired April 3lst, of
course TIC whole Iicensc-tax Of
this year has been paid in money
If the parties have been conducting
their business since May LIST; and
in future the result will be the
same, because no tax is due until
assessment, and assessment ia not
made long enough before May LIST
- ia. ,,,,,lio,ut ia huN his pnn.