Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-05-05
of the amount required by the sinking
fund section"
OTHER LIABILITY.

there exists any other liability Of the
company on the bonds than the one to the
State, the court says that II such other
liability exists at all it MUST be by virtue
OF some other provision of the statute
than the one referred to, and says that
there Is but one debt, and that whatever
pays that debt cancels all the obligations
of the company upon the bonds, and that
whenever IL appears that payment OF the
bonds must be made TO one the idea of
debt on the bonds to another is excluded.
1t finds that payment to the State IS
absolutely and expressly required. II
finds also that under the statute of 1882
and 1906 payments into the sinking fund
were to be treated as release DfO tdnt0
of all liability of the company on account
of the bonds, and that the act of 1850
shows beyond all question that such was
the legislative understanding at the time
of the operation of this provision OF the
original action. The court holds that
there is nothing in the provision for fore
closure IN case of a failure of the compa-
ny TO pay at maturity the bonds issued
to 1t.
ONLY FOR THE STATE.
TO show that the author of the statute
had the security OF the bondholders In his
mind when drafting this section, and that
provision for proceedings for foreclosure
before maturity OF the bonds In cases of
the issue of bonds obtained by fraud is
manifestly for the benefit of the State
alonsf the court finds that in section II
ofthe act Of 1852, which reserves to the
state the right TO enact all such laws as
may be deemed necessary to protect the
interest of the State and to secure the
State against all loss in consequence Of
the issuance Of bonds under the
provisions of this act, but in
such a manner as not TO
impair the vested rights Of the stock
holders OF the companies, nothing Is said
about the vested rights of bOndhOlders,
and this, it says, ''raises a strong pre-
sumption that IL was never intended to
vest in them any right which would in-
terfere In the rem0test degree with the
free exercise of all power Of the State to
deal with the borrowing companies in
reference to the bonds and the securities
created therefor, just as IL might under
any circumstances that should arise be
deemed most for the interest of the State
and The companies, they being the only
parties to the contract Of the companies
that were 20 be at all interested IN what
was TO be DONE"
THE CONCLUSION.
The court adds in conclusion: GAS has
been seen, the bonds to be issued were on
their face to bind only the State. At that
time repudiation of State faith was not
thought OF. No purchaser of State bonds
ever asked whether anything else than
the faith Of the State was pledged for their
payment promptly at maturity. Repu-
diation was looked upon as dishOnOra-
BILE and as something that would
never occur. Security to the State
against loss by the loan OF It's bonds, which
we're provided for, must, therefore, be pre-
sumed TO have been the sole purpose of
the liens which We're to be created on the
issue on bonds. By the judgment of the
court the decree Of the court below In
each case is affirmed.
Justices Matthews and Blatchford took
no part in the decision Of these cases.
VIRGINIA TAX COUPON CASE.
Justice Matthews delivered an opinion
in the Virginia coupon tax case Of Moore
VS.. Greenhow. The plaintiff in error in
this case filed petition In April, 1884, in
the Circuit Court Of the city Of Richmond,
praying for a mandamus TO compel the
defendant, as treasurer Of the city Of
Richmond, to issue TO him a
certificate stating that he had
made the deposit required by
law in payment OF his license
tax, he having rendered TO the treasurer
coupons cut from State bonds ana the
ttnuef having Deeh TCiuseus Inc WITH
prayed for having been refused by the
Circuit Court, and upon writ OF error to
the Supreme Court Of Appeals, the jndg-
ment OF the lower court having been af-
firmed, the case was brought 10 this court.
Justice Matthew's I'm delivering the
opinion Of the court held that this being a
case in which by mandamus 10 is sought
TO compel the offers Of the State OF Vir-
ginia specifically to receive coupons
instead Of money in payment of
license taxes. IL comes within the
exact terms of the decision of the
majority OF this court in Ant0ni vs..
Greenhow according to which the plaintiff
In error Is remitted 10 the remedy provided
by the act Of Jan. IA, 1882. The judg-
ment Of the Supreme Court OF Appeals
Of Virginia Ia therefore affirmed.
Justices Field and Harlan, while adj
herring TO the Views expressed in their
dissenting opinion In the case Of Ant0ni
VS.. GreenhOw, agreed that the principles
announced by the majority IN that case,
II applied 10 the present case, require an
afllrmance OF the judgment below.
GARLAND REFUSED REHEARING.
The court also gave a decision on
motion for the rehearing Of the Virginia
coupon tax cases submitted TO the court
during the recess by Attorney General
Garland On his private capacity) and II.
7 Merrick on behalf OF the State of VII
ginia. The application for rehenfing was
refused by the court.